Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NPS SDD
NPS SDD
POSTGRADUATE
SCHOOL
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
TECHNICAL REPORT
Ship Antiballistic Missile Response:
by
LT Scott Bailey, USN
LT Jesse Black, USN
LCDR Orlando Cornejo,
LT Alexandros Dendis,
LT Todd Greene, USN
Student Members
LT Martin Holguin, USN
LT Daniel Kidd, USN
LT Upendra Ramdat, USN
LT Brian Rosemark, USN
LT Randolph Slaff, USN
LCDR Jason, Stracqualursi, USN
Faculty Members
Fotis Papoulias
William Solitario
Clifford Whitcomb
Robert Harney
Robert Ashton
January 2006
8. PERFORMING
ORGANIZATION REPORT
NUMBER
10.
SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY
REPORT
NUMBER
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
The views expressed in this thesis are
those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or
position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b.
DISTRIBUTION
Approved for public release, distribution CODE
unlimited
13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words)
14. SUBJECT TERMS Ship Design, Total Ship Systems 15. NUMBER
OF PAGES
Engineering, Ship Anti Ballistic Response
i
17. SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
Unclassified
18. SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION OF
THIS PAGE
Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
(Rev. 2-89)
19. SECURITY
CLASSIFICATIO
N OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
16. PRICE
CODE
20.
LIMITATION
OF ABSTRACT
Standard
Prescribed
Std. 239-18
ii
UL
Form
298
by
ANSI
iii
ABSTRACT
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................1
A.
SEA-9 & TSSE 06 TASKING ............................1
B.
TASKING AUTHORITY ..................................1
C.
SEA-9 & TSSE-06 COLLABORATION ......................2
D.
SABR TSSE-06 DESIGN CONTRACT .......................5
E.
TSSE-06 DESIGN APPROACH ............................7
F.
REFERENCES .........................................9
II.
SABR
A.
B.
C.
OVERVIEW ..........................................11
PROJECT MOTIVATION ................................11
CURRENT AND FUTURE BALLISTIC MISSILE THREATS ......12
SEA-9 TASKING & ANALYSIS DEVELOPMENT ..............15
1. Current and Prospective threats ................16
2. Network ........................................16
3. Sensor .........................................17
4. Seaframe .......................................18
5. Interceptor ....................................19
6. Command and Control (C2) .......................19
7. Assumptions ....................................21
C. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS ...............................22
D.
REFERENCES ........................................28
D.
E.
V
1. Overview .......................................40
2. Hull Options ...................................42
a. Monohull ..................................42
b. Trimaran ..................................43
3. Summary ........................................45
PROPULSION AOA ....................................45
1. Overview .......................................45
2. Propulsion Options .............................47
a. Gas Turbine Engines .......................47
b. Diesel Engines ............................47
c. Fuel cells ................................48
d. Conventional Nuclear Plant ................49
e. Molten Salt Nuclear plant .................50
f. Lead cooled Nuclear plant .................51
g. Conventional Steam plant ..................52
3.
Propulsion AOA Results .......................53
4. References .....................................54
COST ANALYSIS OF GAS TURBINES VERSUS MOLTEN SALT ..54
2.
D.
E.
E.
VI.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
COST
SMART B3 ....................................155
HSI Tool summary ............................156
HSI and SABR ................................156
Recommendations .............................157
References ..................................158
ANALYSIS ....................................159
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX II
ix
............................................206
x
I.
J.
B.
C.
xi
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
xv
xvi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The
2006
Ship
Anti
Ballistic
Response
Total
Ship
would
not
have
successfully
completed
the
mission.
Professor
Harney,
Professor
Fotis
Bill
Papoulias,
Solitario,
Professor
Professor
Robert
Clifford
and
RCS
evaluation
of
our
design.
special
Kirk
Sorenstom
for
their
technical
assistance
in
like
to
General
Atomics,
NASA,
ONR,
Superconductor,
thank
American
Lawrence
NAVSEA,
Massachutes
Finally we
Superconductor,
Livermore
Northrop
Institute
National
Laboratory,
Grumman,
of
Boeing,
American
Technology,
and
xvii
xviii
I.
INTRODUCTION
different
threats.
As
such,
the
ships
and
systems
and
systems
capable
of
meeting
our
Navys
future
needs.
A.
designing
these
ships
and
systems,
multi-
systems
engineering,
and
operational
research.
designing
ship
system
to
counter
ballistic
TASKING AUTHORITY
Under the guidance of the Wayne E Meyer Institute, the
of
the
project.
Furthermore,
senior
Navy
duty
engineering.
Every
officers
EDO
be
will
proficient
be
an
in
excellent
systems
systems
complete
either
graduate
level
courses
in
Systems
project
satisfies
the
above
requirements
for
achieving:
1.
cross-functional
education,
2.
TSSE-06
team
worked
together
on
this
project
Figure 1.
TSSE Timeline
able
to
integrate
with
prospective
coalition
BMD
1 Qtd in SEA-9_SABR_Thesis_Report, pg 13
The
SABR
designing
defense
the
system
TSSE-06
ship
the
to
team
was
carry
the
SEA-9
team
primarily
tasked
anti-ballistic
developed.
Figure
in
missile
2
from
Figure 2.
developed
effectiveness
metrics,
and
specifically
measures
of
measures
performance
of
for
each
had
independently
done
their
own
requirements
based
on
SEA-9s
results.
We
decided
to
use
the
by
performing
an
Analysis
of
Alternatives
study
created
detailing
all
contract
the
between
requirements
SEA-9
and
and
SABR
technical
TSSE-06
performance
measures that were needed. This would allow the SABR TSSE
team to begin its ship-based study and design.
D.
Operational
Requirements
Document
(ORD)
was
initial
architecture,
conceptual
design.
including
threshold
5
The
and
preferred
optimal
system
levels
of
performance,
as
determined
team
through
extensive
modeling
by
graduating
months
prior
to
the
design
The
contract
the
enables
the
TSSE
group
to
incorporate
general
requirements
for
new
ballistic
missile
required
projected
operational
operational
capabilities
environment
(POE)
It includes
(ROC)
for
and
the
the
ship
system.
it
submitted
was
to
both
the
TSSE
and
SE
faculty
coordinators.
stakeholders.
E.
design
approach
was
to
follow
the
systems
some
detailed
engineering
analysis
and
design
the
Classical
Systems
Engineering
Process
Model
Figure 3.
that
we
needed
to
construct
model
or
block
Figure 4.
The
shaded
portion
illustrates
the
work
we
group
in
designing
the
ship
and
the
grey
portion
design
and
analysis.
In
the
sub-system
design
design
needed
of
to
hull,
construct
analysis
of
system
components.
mechanical,
and
our
This
alternatives
ship.
and
On
trade
electrical
systems
included
further
off
studies
conclusion
of
of
sub-
sub-system
sub-systems
using
various
software
tools,
such
as
meet
iteration
all
of
the
the
requirements
construct,
stated.
build,
and
More
than
one
test
cycle
was
desired
end
product.
Finally,
we
conducted
final
F.
REFERENCES
[1]
Fotis
Papoulias.
TS
4001:
Lecture
Summary
1:Introduction, p 7, 2006.
[2] Systems Engineering and Analysis Cohort 9. Ship
Anti Ballistic Missile Response,
[3]
William
Solitario.
p 13, 2006.
TS
3002:
Module
3,
SE
10
II.
A.
SABR OVERVIEW
PROJECT MOTIVATION
Although the cold war has come to an end, there are
to
offensive
purposes.
allies
must
use
these
missiles
With
this
strategically
in
for
mind,
challenge
intimidation
and
the
its
these
U.S
and
states
through
nearly
thirty
years
defense
against
ballistic
more
apparent
for
the
need
In 1991, it became
for
ballistic
missile
its
PATRIOT
anti-aircraft
missile
system
to
fairly
missiles,
the
high
success
interceptions
rate
at
often
engaging
the
resulted
only
scud
in
scattering debris. [1] Since the gulf war, the effort has
stepped up in research and development of suitable anti
ballistic missile systems and this effort is continuing and
will need to continue as the threats become more dangerous.
11
proven
BMD
system
acts
as
strong
deterrence
catastrophe
from
possible
hit
by
ballistic
to
the
SEA-9
study
on
ballistic
missile
missile
development
during
the
cold
war
days.
Current
destruction
(WMD)
development
programs
do
not
U.S.
and
the
Soviet
Union.
Today,
these
Nations
can
information
missiles
now
easily
regarding
and
weapons
obtain
development
of
mass
technical
of
ballistic
destruction
from
Many
nations
have
the
ability
to
conceal
today
and
in
the
future.
The
most
significant
1,320
km.
[3]
Another
major
concern
such
proliferation
comes
the
assumption
that
the
former
Soviet
Union
has
also
participated
in
the
shows
list
of
the
current
ballistic
missile
active
development
missile
programs.
and
Weapons
of
They
currently
Mass
possess
destruction
many
short
13
(1300
km)
Shahab
ballistic
missiles
capable
of
reaching
Israel. [4]
The future (2020-2025) time frame suggests that Iran
may develop long range ballistic missiles by then capable
of reaching the United States. With the proliferation of
missile technology and the current 2006 timeframe tensions
between the United States and Iran concerning its nuclear
development program, it is very likely that Iran may remain
a threat nation for a long time. It is also likely with
Chinas ideological beliefs that they will continue to be a
possible and formidable threat in the future. North Korea
will also be expected to remain a future threat for a long
time.
Figure 5.
C.
of
systems
approach
to
examine
future
surface
combatant
emerging
sea-based
Theater
Ballistic
Missile
Defense
(TBMD) missions,[5]
The
SEA-9
team
then
developed
set
of
issues
consulting
with
sources
from
the
Department
of
systems.
The
following
were
identified
in
SEA-9s
There
in
BMD
is
no
(sea,
integrated
air,
network
land,
and
to
connect
space)
for
all
layered
defense
c. Current systems in development will not have the
technical capability to counter ballistic missiles of the
future.
d. Current systems in development will not be able to
counter large salvos of ballistic missiles
After
identifying
these
issues,
the
SEA-9
team
of
2025-2030
countering
time
frame.
ballistic
They
missile
proposed
threats
that
to
in
the
solve
the
issue
addresses
the
current
threats
and
of
the
study
(2025
2030).
Key
attributes
include:
a. size (mass, dimensions, etc)
b. fuel type
c. number of stages
d. mobile or fixed launch (or both)
e. proliferation
f. number of warheads
g. decoy capability
h. range
i. expected velocities throughout trajectory
j. radar cross section
k. max altitude (range dependent)
2. Network
The network is the means to communicate and exchange
data between all participating units in ballistic missile
defense. Key attributes of the network include:
16
expected
size
(bytes)
of
significant
BMD
missile
defense.
If
launches
and
ballistic
sea-based
capability
to
detect
ballistic
missile
4. sensor error
5. sensor max and effective ranges
6. sensor altitude
7. sensor interoperability with non-organic detection
system
8.
sensor
compatibility
with
ship
display,
weapon
is
integrated
With
required
ballistic
in
missile
sea-based
implementation,
the
order
to
defense
participate
in
of
region.
ballistic
logical
response
given
missile
was
the
defense
ship
or
reliability
(regional
to
conduct
ballistic
the
missile
given
mission
defense).[9]
at
hand
Specific
capability
to
contain
components (capacity)
18
requisite
BMD
system
5. Interceptor
An interceptor enables a ballistic missile engagement
to
be
completed.
aspects:
the
The
interceptor
launcher,
the
consists
projectile,
of
and
three
key
projectile
launcher
configuration
(e.g.
vertical,
slewed-
turret, etc)
f. compatibility with ship weapon control and C2 system
g. launcher size (includes mass, dimensions, etc)
h.
interceptor
size
(if
applicable;
includes
mass,
dimensions, etc)
i. interceptor speed
j. interceptor maximum and effective ranges
k. interceptor ability to receive guidance
l. interceptor maneuverability
m.
interceptor
kill
mechanism
(warhead,
KKV,
energy
duration, etc)
6. Command and Control (C2)
Decision making becomes the final essential element in
ballistic missile defense. Whether controlled by computer
or an actual commander, C2 decisions are essential to an
effective defense. The requisite attributes for C2 are:
19
SEA-9
then
narrowed
the
broad
scope
of
ballistic
following
definitions
were
given
by
SEA-9
for
All
actions
taken
to
detect,
track,
employ
an
interceptor
until
ballistic
missile
is
aspects
that
were
applicable
to
their
analysis
and
due
to
scope,
time
constraints,
faculty input.
The applicable list is as follows: [11]
20
complexity,
and
Must
counter
the
perceived
SR
to
IR
ballistic
through
midcourse
missile threats4
Intercept
warhead
in
the
boost
BMs
that
survive
beyond
midcourse
will
not
be
Post-intercept
debris
collateral
damage
and
21
Collaborative
Information
Exchange
(CIX)
exists
Physical
interceptor(s)
(i.e.
missile,
rail
gun,
CONOPS
for
the
deployment
of
SABR
ships
was
American
longe-range
detect,
naval
picket
track,
and
units.
The
vessels
SABR
with
intercept
ships
will
missions
target
act
designed
at
the
like
to
earliest
deterrent
submarine
sufficient
unit
Submarine
(SSBN)
with
the
forces,
deploys
as
capability
where
a
of
the Navys
a
ballistic
single,
self
launching
its
SEA-9
BMD
team
also
capable
proposes
surface
deployment
assets
to
of
up
area
to
where
also
perimeter
be
able
capable
of
to
establish
early
an
detection
effective
and
defense
engagement
of
upon
modeling
Operations
Research
and
information
techniques,
and
provided
standard
Naval
Task Unit for an effective BMD force equipped with the Rail
Gun interceptor consists principally of three warships. It
is assumed that intelligence gathering efforts and the geopolitical situation will permit sufficient time (measured
in
weeks)
for
decision
makers
to
deploy
assets
to
detection
below,
with
corner,
ballistic
equipment.
the
orbiting
missile
satellite
over
launch.
This
initial
shown
in
nation
The
BMD
the
setup
is
shown
upper
left-hand
which
has
threatened
Task
Unit
ships
are
Figure 6.
SABR CONOPS
Detection
Entry
Tracking
Identification
Threat evaluation
Weapons pairing
Engagement
Engagement assessment [15].
detected,
detection
queuing
is
most
likely
entered
information
is
by
into
nonorganic
the
sent
to
detection
the
firing
assets.
This
network,
and
units,
the
24
Figure 7.
SABR CONOPS
C,
D:
detected
by
Tracking
the
and
nearest
Identification:
warship,
and
The
a
target
is
fire-control
the
target
being
tracked
is
classified
25
with
high
Figure 8.
SABR CONOPS
potential
downrange
targets
is
assessed.
Anticipating
of
which
platform
will
have
the
26
highest
Figure 9.
G,
SABR CONOPS
H:
determined
Engagement
that
the
and
Engagement
ballistic
missile
Assessment:
is
Having
threat
that
the
engagement,
looking
for
detection
of
impact
and
system
will
assess
the
feasibility
of
re-
are
repeated.
If
another
27
salvo
is
not
physically
possible (ie the P (Hit) and P (Kill) are too low), the CIX
will hand-off all tracking data to other ballistic missile
defense assets, such as those described in section 3.3
[15].
= BM Launch/Tracking data
= CIX Data
= Radar Acquisition
Final Brief
= EO06Detection
Figure 10.
D.
Unclassified 4
SABR CONOPS
REFERENCES
[1] Systems Engineering and Analysis Cohort 9. Ship
p 29, 2006.
Robert
Strategic
Record
to
Walpole,
National
Intelligence
and
Nuclear
Programs.
Statement
Senate
Proliferation,
Subcommittee
and
Federal
on
International
Services
on
the
Officer
for
the
Security,
Ballistic
29
30
A.
INTRODUCTION
The
SABR
TSSE
team
is
required
to
design
ship
to
the
TSSE
team
and
the
corresponding
design
(risk)
of
the
ship
design
due
to
technical
B.
for
the
BMD
project
with
the
following
criteria [1]:
Create a ship based BMD system architecture.
Use emerging criteria for short to medium range threats.
Integrate with coalition partners.
31
specific
design
SEA-09
set
team
of
then
needs,
used
the
acting
design
mainly
criteria
to
their
own
as
visiting
validate
the
organization
needs
representatives
developed
to
to
ensure
verify
that
the
and
need
assigned
project
[1].
The
following
needs
were
Coalition
Partners
from
Ballistic
Missile
Threat.
Operate
Independent
of
Nation
State
Territorial
Boundaries.
Employ over a wide range of environmental conditions.
Assimilate into the Integrated Layered BMD system.
Interoperate with coalition partners.
Destroy TBMS with a high probability of kill.
missile
threat
midcourse phase.
32
by
intercept
in
boost
to
architecture
as
part
of
layered
ballistic
missile defense
System
must
not
require
high
personnel
costs
(low
manning)
C.
SEA-09s
needs
analysis,
requirements
SEA-09
requirements
originally
for
the
developed
BMD
about
systems,
but
sixty
different
after
further
deployable
Sea
Based
Platform
capable
of
prolonged operations.
Stable platform capable of operations in heavy seas.
Detect and track over the horizon ballistic missile
launch and flight path.
33
threats
and
optimally
pair
assets
with
set
of
quantitative
and
qualitative
means
for
reviewed
by
faculty
members
and
determined
to
be
projectile
at
10
km/sec,
with
the
minimum
threshold velocity of 6 km/sec.
Automation, high reliability equipment, and low
maintenance materials should be employed for an
optimal reduction in crew manning of 50% from
2006 standards (25% threshold).
The ship's maximum speed, sprint endurance and
proposed basing locations should allow for rapid
deployment in order to be on scene within 3 days
of a deployment order (optimally, or in 1 week as
a minimum threshold).
Construction materials, displacement, length, and
manning should allow for an optimal lifecycle
cost comparable to a LCS-class ship, with the
threshold parameter being comparable to a CG-47
class cruiser.
Cost estimate per ship: $2.5
billion.
Total Annual Operating Cost (assuming
20 engagements): $31.8 million.
The ship's signature, redundant and dispersed
systems, damaged stability and shielding should
optimally be maximized for survivability.
As a
minimum, the ship must meet the US Navy standards
for damaged stability and have system redundancy.
At a minimum the ship must have BMD capabilities.
Optimally, it should also be able to defend
itself.
It
is
worth
mentioning
incorporate the requirements given
the requirements needed to design
time-frame capable of performing
extent possible.
E.
that
these
parameters
by the SEA-09 as well as
a ship in the 2025-2030
the mission to the best
TSSE-06 ASSUMPTIONS
Before
proceeding
with
the
detailed
analysis
and
cohort
and
conducted
preliminary
technical
TSSE-06 LIMITATIONS
Due
to
the
high
technical
detail
of
some
of
the
are
certain
limitations
that
must
be
taken
into
account for this project due to technology that has not yet
been proven. Although efforts are well under way to getting
many
of
the
technical
issues
resolved,
there
is
no
REFERENCES
[1] Systems Engineering and Analysis Cohort 9. Ship
36
37
IV.
A.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
The main goal of TSSE-06 team consisted of designing a
SEA
curriculums.
An
Analysis
of
Alternatives
(AOA)
main
coverage
area,
minimum
manning,
requirements.
time
on
The
station,
rapidly
requirements
probability
deployable,
were
of
life-cycle
kill,
cost
per
purpose
stakeholders
of
to
the
questionnaire
distinguish
was
relative
to
allow
importance
of
possible
ship
design
to
meet
the
mission.
Stake-
and
one
token
ranked
lowest
in
terms
of
for
questionnaires
placed
higher
each
requirement.
varied.
weights
For
on
The
example,
say
38
results
some
probability
of
from
the
stakeholders
kill
while
power
systems.
Figure
shows
the
results
Survivability
11%
Multi Mission
Coverage Area
19%
8%
Time on Station
(ready to respond)
11%
Figure 11.
B.
Probability of Kill
22%
Weight Factors
AOA BREAKDOWN
The
TSSE-06
components,
team
consisting
divided
of
the
the
AOA
following:
into
Hull
smaller
form
AOA,
to
five
members
of
the
39
TSSE
team.
The
groups
AOA
used
the
weighting
factors
developed
from
the
C.
the
development
of
the
hull
design,
several
to
determine
the
optimal
hull
configuration,
In
five
Monohull
Catamaran
Trimaran
SWATH
Hydrofoil
specific
performance
published sources.
traits
collected
from
other
the
weighting
factors,
determined
It also
from
the
in
the:
minimum
manning,
rapidly
deployable,
tied
alternative
with
for
the
coverage
trimaran
as
area
survivability
and
the
best
The
design
and
it
greatest
hindrance
technical feasibility.
displacement
being
trimaran
that
of
for
trimaran
design
was
the
15,000
scale
the
tons,
was
not
it
as
became
clear
technically
that
feasible
41
monohull
catamaran
trimaran
SWATH
hydrofoil
coverage area
time on station
probability of kill
minimum manning
rapidly deployable
multi mission
survivability
0.92
1.41
0.86
1.18
1.72
Total score:
Figure 12.
2. Hull Options
Specific
characteristics
(from
the
TSSE
2004
design
designing,
This
of
type
information
and
building
vessel,
due
to
experience,
There is large
and
operating
the
amount
of
less
risky
is
the
monohulls.
available
option.
cheapest
expenses,
that
alternatives.
will
increase
Research
the
and
overall
development
cost
of
the
large
hull
volume,
monohulls
offer
great
accommodation.
because
of
Can
the
be
operated
large
water
with
plane
variable
area
and
deadweight;
provide
the
good
enough
seakeeping,
when
sailing
in
open
DDX Concept
Figure 13.
When
DDX Concept
considering
normal
operational
speeds,
the
hand,
when
the
speed
increases,
the
powering
b. Trimaran
Although
recently,
conceptual
most
several
information
studies
that
trimarans
have
about
class
consider
the
the
been
comes
trimaran
43
built
from
hull
Figure 14.
resistance
than
the
equivalent
monohull,
resistance
is
clearly
compensated
by
the
Better
Seakeeping
and
Stability:
Outrigger
hulls
transported
in
upper
decks
without
stability
3 Taken from
www.globalsecurity.org
44
3. Summary
Ultimately, in our analysis the trimaran finished with
a
score
of
0.86
and
the
monohull
scored
with
nearly
of
monohull
for
decision
Alternatives,
the
was
we
ballistic
based
on
decided
missile
to
use
defense
stakeholder
standard
ship.
feedback
This
and
the
D.
PROPULSION AOA
1. Overview
The goal of the power AOA group was to determine the
of
the
ship.
The
Power
AOA
The
seven
different
power
compared
seven
plants
that
were
pressure
reactor),
Nuclear
(molten
salt),
Nuclear
other
using
the
requirement
characteristics
as
Time on station
o Endurance: 1/days between refueling
o Reliability: repair maintenance hour/
hour
o Logistic support: hour refuel at sea
Probability of Kill :
N/A
Coverage area
45
operating
completion
of
the
performance
AoA,
the
final
against
each
other.
The
group
created
cost
The calculator
reactor was the winner in the cost AOA due mainly to the
high cost of fuel, and the assumed continuous rise in fuel
costs.
In
the
end,
the
molten
salt
nuclear
plant
was
2. Propulsion Options
a. Gas Turbine Engines
Initially
were
size,
the
LM2500,
weight,
the
gas
LM2500+,
specific
turbines
LM6000,
fuel
that
and
were
the
consumption,
compared
MT30.
and
Their
electrical
The smaller
consumption
spreadsheet
was
with
increasing
created
crude
comparing
oil
prices.
prospective
cost
A
of
for
Power
analyzed.
In
generation,
order
to
47
several
compare
alternatives
these
have
technologies,
diesel
engines
capable
of
producing
500
Mw
of
power
is
analyzed
BURMEISTER
&
diesels
WEIN,
from
CATERPILLAR;
among
others.
MTU;
YANMAR;
Because
of
the
our
selection
to
CATERPILLAR
(USA)
and
MTU
(Germany).
Considering
the
power
density
for
Propulsion
we
Caterpillar
standardization,
3608.
this
From
is
not
the
the
point
best
of
view
of
and
we
solution
decision
is
consistent
with
Maintainability
and
dramatically
the
Procurement
Cost,
cells
Alternatives
were
considered
selection
for
during
electrical
the
Analysis
generation.
of
fuel
low
pollution
technologies
being
to
the
developed
environment.
for
power
The
plants
fuel-cell
generate
The primary advantages of the fuel cell are its low heat
signature,
high
efficiency,
little maintenance.
produces 200kW.
low/no
pollution,
and
very
importantly,
fuel
cells
require
explosive,
distribute.
which
makes
it
source
of
Hydrogen is flammable
difficult
to
store
and
hydrogen.
This
would
increase
maintenance
of
the
were
removed
from
the
list
of
feasible
means
of
electrical generation.
d. Conventional Nuclear Plant
We
carriers
and
important
on
to
It
is
other
at
Long
advantage
endurance.
compared
looked
of
not
nuclear
Beach
plants
class
the
nuclear
needed
to
systems.
found
aircraft
cruisers.
The
most
plant
its
high
refuel
However,
on
is
repeated
building
times
ships
with
cycle
costs
when
compared
to
building
ships
with
carrier.
[1]
nuclear
cruisers
with
When
comparing
Spruance
49
Class
long
beach
cruisers,
class
it
was
would
percent.
As
have
amounted
such,
the
to
Navy
an
increase
decided
to
of
save
about
money
40
and
are
disadvantages
high
manning,
of
conventional
personnel
nuclear
training,
and
problems
and
safety
issues.
In
the
end,
the
and
survivability
but
unfavorable
in
many
other
type
of
propulsion
system
is
not
feasible
for
the
design.
e. Molten Salt Nuclear plant
The Liquid Fluoride salt, Thorium-fuelled nuclear
reactor (hereafter referred to as the Molten Salt reactor)
was first introduced to the design group in the TS 4001
class in May 2006.
As
moderator.
secondary
salt
loop,
loop
Thorium
Heat
usually
containing
233
thus
generated
consisting
thorium
cycle.
for
of
is
a
passed
separate
processing
Molten
salt
to
molten
through
the
reactors
are
nuclear
fuel,
reprocessing
of
the
fuel
occurs
design
operation
this
allows
the
designs.
reactor
is
implementation
Another
designed
of
important
to
operate
passively
advantage
at
safe
is
that
temperatures
in
output
to
closed-cycle
gas
turbines
and
achieve
reactor
disadvantage
previous
of
coupled
this
research
to
type
steam
of
cycle.
reactor
conducted,
is
thereby
The
primary
the
limited
limiting
plant
succeeded
Alternatives
was
in
in
the
the
areas
of
the
Molten-Salt
technology
original
minimal
the
Where
Analysis
of
manning
and
An in-depth description
will
be
provided
in
the
Lead-cooled
supported
by
Nuclear
plant
Lawrence
is
currently
Livermore
National
The
type
of
reactor
are
the
passively
Benefits of
safe
results
of
The disadvantages of
efficient,
Rankine
Steam
manning level.
possibly
cycle
which
fueling
concerns
This
reactor
thus
scope
of
and
without
did
as
benefits
as
not
Alternatives,
the
would
in
coupling
necessitate
with
higher
same
Analysis
resulting
conventional
perform
as
the
industrial
it
was
well
seen
conventional
construction
Naval
in
the
as
reactor.
initial
similar
in
Naval
reactor,
and
training
The
manning,
conventional
steam
plant
was
3.
the
molten
salt
reactor,
followed
closely
by
gas
gas turbine
Diesel
Fuel cells
Conv Nuke
Conv Steam
turbines.
coverage area
0.003
0.014
0.14123
0.033
0.004
0.1883
0.02
time on station
0.212
0.212
0.23182 0.0561
0.027
0.0224
0.25
probability of kill
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
minimum manning
0.082
0.082
0.15195
0.211
0.103
0.1055
0.17
rapidly deployable
0.021
0.021
0.02083 0.1948
0.101
0.1015
0.12
0.136
0.157
0.20606 0.2208
0.162
0.1546
0.23
multi mission
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
survivability
0.11
0.099
0.055
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.08
0.57
0.60
0.86
0.74
0.52
0.71
0.9
Total score:
Figure 15.
Because
N/A
N/A
of
the
fact
that
the
scores
between
gas
Aircraft
Carriers,
01
Aug
1998,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/gao/n
siad98001/a1.htm
IV
Website,
13
July
2005
primary
goal
of
the
cost
analysis
work
was
to
The primary
Combustion
cost,
virtually
Gas
no
Turbines,
there
end-of-life
is
cost,
less
but
installment
significant
cost
concern
since
the
initial
charge
fissile
rare-earth
metal
production,
currently
disposed
of
such
in
as
monazite,
United
States
and
is
low-level
[United
States
Geological
Survey
product:
than
conventional
nuclear
reactors
due
to
the
an
attempt
to
provide
first-approximation
such
that
all
assumptions
could
be
user-
This
cost
for
the
Combustion
Gas
Turbine
as
The reactor, on
While
associated
estimated
as
with
dismantling
significantly
higher
reactor,
than
it
the
was
actual
significantly
fuels.
shorter
half-lives
than
other
nuclear
An average daily
fed
back
combustion
turbines
into
gas
powered
the
specific
turbines,
an
also
energy
fuel
consumption
assuming
storage
This number
that
medium
for
of
the
the
gas
an
all-
efficiency.
The
molten
salt
running
cost
was
if
the
follow
on
assumptions
work
were
arrives
run
at
different
through
the
costs.
model,
the
to
the
lack
of
susceptibility
56
to
world
oil
prices.
Figure 16.
57
58
A.
DESIGN PROCESS
This
means
that
preliminary
some
decisions
information,
but
cannot
often
water
ship
displaces
be
that
made
without
information
is
directly
effects
how
much
propulsion
displacement.
engines
is
Therefore,
it
large
is
component
easy
to
see
of
how
the
many
Figure 17.
In
order
to
manage
these
interrelated
construction.
key
parameters
designated.
Once
starting
point
is
done,
the
original
entry
values
used
to
begin
the
be
determined,
estimate
based
determined.
and
on
therefore
the
exact
more
engines
exact
needed
weight
can
be
Parametric Analysis
Starting-point
hull particulars
Parametric
Analysis
Stakeholder
Requirements
ship
was
design spiral.
into
the
what
ships
shareholder
make
one
complete
loop
around
the
spiral,
understand
existing
to
a
parametric
successful
are.
requirements
analysis
design
attributes
Beginning
based
was
with
on
the
used
in
to
similar
customer
and
questionnaires
payload
were
determined.
60
The
worst
case
deployment
time
speed
dictated
by
requirement
characteristics
of
the
the
of
rail
customer,
30
gun
knots.
weapons
determined
The
principal
system
to
be
Applied
Physics
actual
parameters.
designs
Corporation
(MAPC)
spreadsheet
match
requirements
to
hull
61
Hydrostatics
Figure 18.
analysis
Summer's
Design
62
Lanes,
for
parametric
Parametric
Solutions:
Volume
Displaced
Length (LWL)
(initial
estimate)
Displacement
to Length
Speed-toLength ratio
SABR
design:
525,000
650
55
1.18
usually
range
from
40
Midship
Section
Coefficient
0.72
Beam-toDraft Ratio
3.0
ft
ft
Length-toBeam Ratio
8.7
Table 1.
typical
values.
Combatants
to 100.
design
0.4 to 2.0
0.42 (CG) to
Typical combatant:
0.59 (Fletcher).
0.25-0.27 and 0.37-0.50 should be
avoided.
0.60
0.43
25.0
74.9
and
ft
0.35
Block
Coefficient
Draft
Beam
values
cuft
Froude
Number
Prismatic
Coefficient
Typical
guidelines:
63
for a
design
the
shape
of
the
desired
hull
was
determined
listed
in
Table
above.
Rhino
three-
at
this
stage
was
primarily
the
underwater
the
waterline
hull
above
the
was
optimized
based
on
Figure 19.
The hullform generated in Rhino,
the parametrically-determined design criteria
64
matching
Figure 20.
The
of
creating
the
hull
in
Rhino
was
an
the
correct
form
coefficients
were
achieved.
the
basic
hydrosatics.
In
this
way,
it
was
65
LOA
645 ft
LWL
632 ft
Beam
79 ft
Draft
24.2 ft
Displacement
15260 tons
Cb
.437
Cx
.721
Cp
.606
Table 2.
3. Determine Resistance
By completing the hull design, several follow-on steps
in the design spiral that are dependent on first having an
established hull form were able to proceed.
most
important
of
those
steps
was
to
One of the
determine
the
amount
of
propulsive
powering
that
needed
to
be
resistance
4.0,ii)Autopower
prediction
algorithms:
and
Power
3.0.5
the
i)Navcad
Prediction
University of Michigan.
Autopower
software
as
well.
66
In
addition
to
this,
resistance
predictions
are
tabulated
below
in
V(knots)
Fn
Resistance (lb)
0.036
523.89
0.071
3855.49
266.21
354.94
0.107
12258.09
846.37
1128.49
12
0.142
27723.85
1914.21
2552.28
15
0.178
52567.21
3629.54
4839.38
18
0.213
90095.77
6220.72
8294.29
21
0.249
144793.52
9997.36
13329.81
24
0.284
221489.56
15292.88
20390.51
27
0.32
312422.70
21571.42
28761.89
30
0.355
443045.92
30590.38
40787.17
Table 3.
Resistance Predictions
67
using
EHP(hp)
48.23
Autopower
PPP
Effective
power (kw)
30
V(knots)
Fn
Resistance (lb)
0.036
434.50
0.071
3258.72
225
300
0.107
12058.01
827.78
1110.07
12
0.142
27255.35
1871.07
2509.15
15
0.178
51611.10
3543,09
4751,36
18
0.213
88275.01
6060,06
8126,67
21
0.249
141624.96
9722,52
13038,11
24
0.284
215414.88
14788,18
19831,27
27
0.32
304400.94
20897,05
28023,40
30
0.355
434277.80
29813,06
39979,97
Table 4.
EHP(hp)
40
V(knots)
Fn
Resistance (lb)
0.036
543.77
Effective
power (kw)
37.545
0.071
3918.06
270.525
360.7
0.107
12311.10
850.0275
1133.37
12
0.142
27610.44
1906.38
2541.84
15
0.178
52010.07
3591.068
4788.09
18
0.213
88687.13
6123.458
8164.61
21
0.249
142003.95
9804.75
13073
24
0.284
216546.30
14951.57
19935.43
27
0.32
304651.21
21034.83
28046.44
0.355
431832.02
29816.11
39754.81
30
Table 5.
EHP(hp)
50.06
V(knots)
Fn
Resistance (lb)
0.036
500.7559165
Effective
power (kw)
34.575
0.071
3677.460207
253.9125
338.55
0.107
12209.10271
842.985
1123.98
12
0.142
27529.84403
1900.815
2534.42
15
0.178
52062.75624
3594.705
4792.94
18
0.213
89019.30324
6146.393
8195.19
21
0.249
142807.4406
9860.228
13146.97
68
EHP(hp)
46.1
24
0.284
217816.8751
15039.3
20052.4
27
0.32
307158.248
21207.93
28277.24
30
0.355
436385.2099
30130.49
40173.98
Table 6.
Average Resistance
Hull Resistance
----Autopower ----PPP ----Navcad ----Average
500000
450000
400000
350000
Rt(lb)
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
3
12
15
18
21
V(knots)
Figure 21.
69
24
27
30
Figure 22.
Other
Autohydro
Hull
software
Calculations
has
been
used
were
for
also
Naval
performed.
Architecture
70
50000
45000
40000
35000
EHP(hp)
30000
25000
Good correlation
between methods
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
V(knots)
Figure 23.
speeds
71
Figure 24.
Power requirement
existing combatant designs
72
validation
against
other
4. EHP to SHP
The resistance calculations give the amount of power
needed to tow a ship through perfectly smooth water at a
given speed.
the
inefficiencies
inherent
in
the
appendages,
The installed,
power
to
overcome
resistance
once
the
KNs
Delivered
Shaft
Shaft
Open
Resistance Power (Pd) per Power per Power
Water
shaft
Shaft
TOTAL
Efficiency
Lbs
HP
HP
HP
13708
157
162
324
0.716
19.2
10
49587
1093
1127
2254
0.743
37.3
15
105135
3395
3500
7000
0.761
54.9
20
186249
8007
8254
16508
0.762
73.2
25
299834
16313
16818
33636
0.753
92.3
30
443046
29227
30131
60262
0.745
111.6
Velocity
Table 7.
Conversion of EHP to SHP. This shows that a
total of 55 MW SHP required for 30 knots
73
RPM
5.
and
heavy
that
they
force
the
rest
of
the
ship
to
be
their
specific
availability
cargo.
of
Shafts
compromising
locations
space
can
the
for
extend
proper
on
other
for
ships
tend
resources,
long
utilization
part
of
to
reduce
such
of
as
the
available
for
ship,
space,
hull
and
power
generation
for
the
ship,
detailed
reliability,
coverage
area,
life
cycle
cost,
modern
propulsion options
technology
three
different
74
Magneto
hydrodynamics
relates
to
the
flows
electricity)
through
it
an
creates
electrolyte
a
force,
(fluid
which
is
can
conduct
perpendicular
Figure 25.
of
propulsion
which
reached
15
conversion
was
feasible,
expected
kms/hr
is
is
[3].
pretty
to
reach
200
test
stated
meaning
that
This
low,
MITSUBIHI
constructed
kms/hr,
that
this
but
the
only
power
technology
Jet
propulsion
is
kind
of
and
acceleration
experienced
by
the
boat
is
Figure 26.
Kamewa VLWJ
76
drag
due
to
no
need
for
steering
devices.
Today,
it
has
been
operationally
proven
in
Propeller),
capable
of
propelling
3500
ton
the
U.S
Navy
and
Rolls
Royce
are
working
600
foot
length
ship,
8400
LT
hull,
which
was
77
Figure 27.
3. Propulsion Pod
This
propulsion
system
is
derivation
of
was
included
inside
the
thruster
hub
to
directly
Figure 28.
78
and
reduce
weight,
due
the
absence
of
more
flexibility
to
internal
layout
and
increase
turning
pods
in
all
directions,
increase
maneuvering
has
been
operation
since
1999
in
Queen
Selection Process
&
Volume:
Due
to
the
need
to
increase
be
eliminated.
Due
the
79
outer
layout
of
podded
for
to
podded propulsion.
Efficiency:
claim
not
Podded
and
water
Jet
manufactures
literature
and
model
which
compare
these
devices, the same grade was given for both. For MHD, the
efficiency is reported as low.
Reliability:
The
first
combatant
using
water
failures
using
it.
Since
reported
failures
were
been
feasible
for
couple
of
years,
there
is
not
80
weight
Technical
Feasibility
Weight &
Volume
Efficiency
Reliability
Coverage
Area
Life Cycle
Cost
Manning
Total
MHD
0.15
0.15
0.6
0.6
0.15
0.15
0.15
3
1
1
0.45
0.15
0.15
3
3
3
0.45
0.45
0.45
4
3
4
0.6
0.45
0.6
0.15
0.15
0.1
2
2
0.3
0.2
2
2
0.3
0.2
2
2
0.3
0.2
Table 8.
Propulsion
POD
Water Jet
1.4
2.75
2.45
process.
incorporate
standardizes
itself
First
of
all,
into
an
all
technical
training.
podded
electric
propulsion
ship
Furthermore,
and
due
to
can
also
the
several
iteration
for
blades,
diameter
and
area
method
was
used
[11]
considering
the
82
following
TYPE
Kd-5-100 ln
33 nozzle
Ka-4-70
ln
37 nozzle
Ka-4-70
ln
19 nozzle
B-Series
5
blades
B-Series
5
blades
B-Series
5
blades
B-Series
5
blades
B-Series
5
blades
B-Series
5
blades
B-Series
4
blades
B-Series
4
blades
Table 9.
Diameter
(ft)
P/D
Area
Ratio
Open
Water
Efficiency
Method
16.79
1.8
0.747
AUTOPOWER
11.63
1.498
0.7
0.587
AUTOPOWER
10.52
1.278
0.7
0.610
17
1.4
0.642
16.5
1.4
0.640
16
1.4
0.637
15.58
1.3
0.623
16
1.3
0.85
0.639
17
1.4
0.85
0.660
16
1.4
0.621
16
1.4
0.85
0.647
AUTOPOWER
MATLAB
CODE
MATLAB
CODE
MATLAB
CODE
MATLAB
CODE
MATLAB
CODE
MATLAB
CODE
MATLAB
CODE
MATLAB
CODE
Propeller selection
Considering the higher open water efficiency, Kd5-100 ln 33 Nozzle propeller was selected. This is Ducted
Propeller with decelerating nozzle, 5 blades, area ratio of
1.0, diameter of 16.79 ft, and open water efficiency of
0.747. With that value for efficiency, the BHP total was
drawn in a curve; the BHP considering a 20 % allowance; and
the necessary Electrical input for an efficiency of 0.994
for a Homopolar Motor. Results can be seen in the curve
below.
83
POWER CURVES
90000
80000
70000
Power (HP)
60000
Shaft Power TOTAL
Electrical Power
BHP with 20 % allowance
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
velocity (Kns)
Figure 29.
Power Curves
with
power
of
the
NASA,
plant
were
process.
The
weights,
machinery
were
defined
layout.
detailed
all
the
advance
major
identified
volumes
during
the
done
in
of
the
components
early
and
work
in
the
quantities
initial
power
design
of
the
plant
helium
gas
turbines,
electrical
generator
sets,
and
Figure 30.
Transparent hull revealing the location and
layout of the machinery spaces
There is one central reactor space that provides heat
(power) to a forward and an aft engine room.
The two
its
forward
bulkhead
center of buoyancy.
was
on
the
ship
longitudinal
Figure 31.
Positioning
estimation
major
machinery
for
weight
7. Weight Estimation
a. Center of Gravity Estimation
The model developed for the calculation of
the
longitudinal
(LCG),
transverse
(TCG),
and
vertical
Excel
based
spreadsheet.
The
center
of
gravity
for
list
of
duplicate
components
components.
was
For
expanded
example,
to
generator
the
stanchions
or
ship
design.
lighting
Minor
fixtures
components
were
not
such
as
specifically
were
designated
as
the
center
of
buoyancy,
the
center
of
gravity
for
each
group
was
The
LCG
components
weight
was
by
calculated
their
by
position
multiplying
relative
to
each
the
VCG
was
calculated
by
multiplying
each
components
determine
the
final
VCG,
TCG,
and
LCG
Center of Gravity
Transverse
Longitudinal
0.00
2.01
0.00
-3.00
0.00
-0.60
0.01
-0.30
0.00
1.04
0.00
0.00
-0.01
0.55
Vertical
8.50
1.60
1.68
0.55
0.93
1.24
1.30
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Center
Reference
Value
VCG
Above Keel
15.80
From
Centerline
TCG
LCG
Figure 32.
0.00
From Oy
-0.30
initial
weight
estimation
for
SABR
was
provided
the
characteristics
needed
for
the
the
design
group
to
much
more
accurate
weight
Method.
The
conceptual
Parent
Ship
design
Method
uses
characteristics
ratios
and
between
the
known
design
weight
with
greater
accuracy.
The
was
adopted
similarities
prismatic
in
Hull Structure
Propulsion
Electric
Command and Surveillance
Auxiliary Systems
Outfit and Furnishings
Armament
LSD-49
as
Harpers
the
parent
displacement,
coefficient
Ferry
relative
length,
to
the
Class
ship
beam,
amphibious
due
to
the
draft,
and
conceptual
design.
Figure 33.
The
ratios
were
used
in
many
different
was
imperative
flexibility
while
in
order
generating
to
the
allow
model
for
and
design
greatly
only
differences
between
the
Parent
Ship
Method and the technique used by the design group were that
the SABR weight estimation model included additional ratios
and a section for the manual input of major components.
Additional ratios were needed specifically for the group
100 components (hull structure). If the group was able to
determine a major components weight such as the nuclear
core, pulse alternators, gas turbines, propellers, etc, the
actual weight of the component was input into the model
rather than using the formula outlined by the Parent Ship
Method.
The
manual
input
of
actual
component
weights
90
Figure 34.
estimation
by
model
was
able
almost
2000
tons
to
refine
relative
to
the
weight
the
initial
development
of
more
precise
weight
With
iterations
the
development
through
the
design
91
of
this
spiral
model,
can
be
6. Damaged Stability
Once the engine room design was complete, watertight
bulkheads
could
floodable
length
described
in
be
placed
could
the
be
U.S.
around
the
determined.
Navy
Design
equipment
The
Data
and
requirements
Sheet
DDS
079-1
were
used
stability.
as
the
minimum
threshold
standard
for
300
ft
and
do
not
have
without
side-protective
that
the
ship
needs
to
able
to
survive
of
order
the
to
validate
watertight
this
requirement,
transverse
bulkheads
the
were
each space, figure 23 shows that the design meets DDS 079
0.15 LBP requirement and it also can be said that the ship
is built to a 3-compartment standard.
92
F l o o d a b l e L e n g th (ft)
400
Permeability: 0.95
Permeability: 0.85
300
200
100
0
0
10
15
20
25
Figure 35.
Plot of floodable length
watertight bulkheads overlayed.
The
good
byproduct
spaces
of
to
floodable
the
work
minimize
length
done
power
in
with
30
the
characteristics
laying
out
distribution
the
35
ship's
are
machinery
distances.
By
flooding.
expense
in
In
other
achieving
words,
the
stability characteristics.
there
higher
than
was
no
additional
required
damaged
93
40
Figure 36.
the
initial
stages
of
the
hull
design
are
weight,
and
cost.
Table
10
These
loading,
summarizes
94
the
Table 10.
Note:
standard) materials.
Structural
Element
Structure
Design
Material
stiffness(reduce
deflection,
whipping), ease of construction,
low cost
long'l
girders,
steel
keelsons,
(HSLA80)
transverse frames
Primary
Advantage
35-50%
weight
savings,
low
thermal conductivity, lower lifecycle
costs,
optimize
complex
geometries
20-50% weight savings, increased
laser-welded
stiffness, reduced assembly and
decks
corrugated
fit-up
costs,
thermal
and
core (LASCOR)
vibration insulation
35-50%
weight
savings,
low
Carbon
thermal conductivity, lower lifedeckhouse plating
composite
cycle costs, integrated antennae
structures
Secondary
Tertiary
deckhouse,
bulkheads,
machinery
foundations
Carbon
composite
hull plating
Steel
(HSLA80)
stiffness
(reduce
deflection,
whipping), ease of construction,
low cost
girders,
keelsons,
and
transverse
frames.
These elements undergo the largest loads and must have the
highest stiffness characteristics in order to control the
hogging and sagging deflections of the hull.
may
be
both
static
(based
on
loading
or
These loads
grounding)
and
the
SABR
design,
the
structure
bending moments.
95
undergo
large
structure.
Its
advantages
include
good
stiffness
construction
high
strength
and
low
relatively
alloy
low
(HSLA)
cost.
steel
was
Specifically,
chosen.
HSLA
of
275
MPa
in
the
as-rolled
or
normalized
rolled
refining
carbon
and
steels,
largely
precipitation
by
hardening.
virtue
Because
of
grain
the
high
that
of
mild
steel.
This
will
further
reduce
construction costs.
The secondary type of ship structure includes items
such
as:
decks,
foundations.
bulkheads,
deckhouse,
and
machinery
the
sandwich
structure
called
(laser-welded
core)
interior
is
metal
LASCOR
corrugated
used.
As
of
together
core.
by
metal
a
joined
corrugated
sheets
provides
high
bending
stiffness
at
low
weight.
over
decade
to
save
weight
for
platforms,
hangar
are
several
advantages
of
LASCOR
over
conventional steel:
1.
Compared
metallic
sandwich
to
conventional
structures
increased stiffness.
have
steel
structures,
reduced
weight
and
shipyard.
Outfitting
of
distrubutive
systems
and
The
elimination
increases
the
of
stiffeners
usable
volume
on
within
decks
the
and
total
ship.
For
interior
the
decks
secondary
(deckhouse,
structure
other
bulkheads,
and
than
the
machinery
primary
small
structure
in
vessels
for
many
years.
97
Figure
21
from
ref
13
is
summary
of
the
composite
Figure 37.
Composite Applications
Below
is
summary
of
the
advantages
as
to
50
percent,
compared
to
Weight reductions of
steel,
can
currently
be
Since
secondary
structures
comprise
translates
to
total
ship
weight
savings
of
about
Composite
structural
elements
have
better
This is an aid
fabrication
costs
and
better
overall
dimensional
tolerances.
3.
They
properties.
have
reduced
noise
vibration
and
to
be
adapted
into
smart
structures,
i.e.
in
composite
sandwich
panels
are
good
The
thermal
insulators.
5.
tailor
the
The
designer
composite
has
structure
increased
to
the
flexibility
particular
to
need.
stiffness,
or
to
enhance
the
producibility
by
6.
costs
than
structures.
Fewer
inspections,
less
painting, and fewer repairs are needed over the life of the
ship
because
of
the
non-corrosion
and
reduced
fatigue
XX
through
XX,
in
Appendix
X,
present
the
strength
under
Composites
are
both
in-plane
(axial)
more
advantageous
and
than
bending
steel
or
loads.
aluminum
AIAA
2003-4442
July
2003,
Overview
of
Electric
Kissel,
moving
Joe,
parts,
Magnetohydrodynamics:
(2005):
Motors
20
without
Aug.
2006<
http://itotd.com/articles/500/magnetohydrodynamicpropulsion>.
[4] Fujisawa, Nobuyuki. Measurement of Basic Performances
for Water jet Propulsion Systems in Water Tunnel
[5] http:// www.ultradynamics.com/sections/educational
[6] Water Jet Propulsion Engines, July 2006, available
http://www.shiptechnology.com/contractors/propulsion/waterjet.html
[7] http://www.naval-technology.com/project_printable.asp
[8] http://www.pitkajarvi.net/jetrew.htm
[9] Marine Design Case Study, by Center for Commercial
Deployment of Transportation Technologies (CCDoTT)
[10]
Podded
Propulsion:
Its
future
100
in
Marine
Carderock Division - Naval Surface Warfare Center, NSWCCD20-TR-2002/06, May 2002, pg 53-54.
B.
POWER GENERATION
1.
Introduction
2.
The SABR
Reactor
Implementation
of
the
Liquid-Fluoride
Over the
previously
fluoride
reactor
conducted
at
until 1976.
discussed,
this
patterned
after
is
Oak
Ridge
National
particular
the
work
Laboratories
liquidthat
from
was
1951
Experiment
Experiment (MSRE).
(ARE)
and
the
Molten-Salt
Reactor
The SABR
and
beryllium
fluoride
(BeF2),
referred
to
as
performance
in
extensive
ORNL.
101
study
and
test
at
There
are
several
key
reactors.
resulting
ability
in
the
number
in
that
core
is
of
conventional
this
reactor
fuel
other
between
particular
nuclear
and
differences
fluid
instead
operational
fluid-fuel
reactor
(solid-core)
of
solid,
advantages.
allows
is
One
on-line
an
advantage
confirmed
in
paper
by
recent
nuclear
experts [1].
There
are
is
the
first
two
salt
fuel
compositions
salt,
in
the
core.
containing
The
uranium-233
The
following
design
details
were
provided
by
Kirk
configuration
envisioned
for
the
SABR
reactor
then
the
fuel
salt
would
spiral
outward
toward
the
spiral
spiral
serve
heat
exchanger.
channels,
as
In
the
axially-oriented
neutronic
moderator,
interstitials
rods
and
of
graphite
blanket
salt,
roughly
half
of
102
the
of
neutrons
salt
the
would
would
Within the
produced
in
medium
and
radioactivity
isolating
agent.
Turbines,
utilization
of
discussed
in
salt
coolant
the
next
loop
section.
prevents
The
the
high-
vessel,
and
prevents
radioactive
particles
from
atmospheric
pressure
and
preventing
unnecessary
radiation exposure.
A loss-of-coolant accident is a very different event
in a liquid-fluoride reactor than in a conventional solidcore reactor.
coefficient
reactors.
But
of
reactivity,
unlike
similar
solid-core
to
solid-
reactors,
the
passively
different
by
means
of
configuration.
draining
This
the
core
passive
into
drain
a
is
If
all
cooling
and
103
power
fails,
then
the
gas
on
solid-core
reactor
does
instead
using
not
a
fuel
elements
require
these
simple
and
at
all
times.
engineered
fail-safe
This
safeguards,
core
cooling
system.[2]
The estimated weight of the core is 400 Tons, which is
the weight of the exchanger, moderator, core and blanket
fuel salts, required pumps and shielding.
size
for
the
core
(shielding
The estimated
included)
will
be
Anticipated improvements in
C.
3.
Generators
4.
Pulse Alternators
5.
Electrical Distribution
DAMAGE CONTROL
1.
Introduction
Labs
Survivability
is
Technology
the
damage
Center
control-
for
Safety
automated
and
reduced
manning, DC-ARM.
2.
evaluate
and
damage-control
demonstrate
manning,
incremental
corresponding
to
reductions
in
increases
in
for
fire
detection
and
fire
characterization.
c. Firemain distributed controls (Smart Valves) for
robust,
survivable
isolation
of
firemain
ruptures.
d. Smoke ejection systems for clearing smoke
e. Access
closure
monitoring
to
improve
situation
awareness.
f. Video
installed
in
most
spaces
for
compartment
Control
System
(SCS)
to
enable
105
h. New
doctrine
developed
to
integrate
with
new
technologies.
The
DC-ARM
system
begins
with
sensors
placed
to
computers
in
D.C.
Central
so
that
The
sensor
input
is
also
re-enforced
with
video
of
the
ship,
in
addition
to
those
compartments
The
DC-ARM
technology
has
been
tested
during
for
the
wartime
damage
scenario
and
the
damage
systems,
sailors
scenarios
manning
actively
to
major
participated
exercise
doctrine
fires,
in
the
a
smoke
and
in
DC-ARM
the
flooding.
damage
systems
realistic
Navy
control
and
reduced
shipboard
damage
environment. [1]
The
results
from
the
damage
control
scenarios
More
Integration
can
be
found
in
the
Combat
Systems
mist
technology
is
based
on
the
use
of
on
closing
evacuating
openings.
people,
This
shutting
immediate
off
ventilation
activation
will
or
keep
107
made
shock-proof
as
well
as
anti-magnetic,
features
Special
units
are
available
to
operate
without
occurred
and
the
ships
could
continue
their
of
HI-FOG
currently
More
the
than
equipped
water
700
with
mist
high
most
pressure
common
ships
the
fire
and
system.
suppression
water
water
mist
offshore
In
mist
the
systems.
system
system
that
is
world-wide.
structures
very
They
safety
have
been
conscious
Sensors
for
fire
characterization
detection
and
fire
automated
responses
by
installed
systems
and
also
will
be
installed
to
provide
maximum
detection
monoxide
closed
circuit
detectors,
television
fire
(CCTV)
and
flame
system,
detectors,
heat
detectors,
updates
via
webpages
and
ICAS
(Integrated
system
and
associated
wireless
network
The
will
the
need
for
investigators
to
search
for
and
will
be
interconnected
data
networks
system
survivability.
As
such,
control
stations
from
the
rest
of
the
ship
as
practically
as
around
the
ship.
multi-sensor
compartment.
detectors,
monoxide,
fire
Fiber
triple
CCTV,
To
better
detectors
optical
wavelength
and
respond
high
and
will
or
react
monitor
electrostatic
infrared
performance
carbon
or
each
smoke
flame,
optical,
to
fiber
These
Shipboard
flooding
and
restoring
to
flooding
Therefore,
compartments
to
the
located
maximum
below
extent
the
possible.
damage
control
from
detectors
will
the
be
bilge
level
located
to
to
the
indicate
overhead.
the
The
presence
of
This
stability
due
to
flooding.
In
addition,
all
of
casualties
occurring
on
ships,
there
is
also
to
Damage
Control
stations
via
the
wireless
smart
valve
technology,
sensors
in
valves
The
isolating
the
valves
then
damaged
automatically
section
and
close
or
rerouting
open,
flow
so
importance
understated.
As
of
clearing
such,
using
smoke
quickly
DC-ARM
means
can
having
not
be
good
available
to
number
of
systems
are
systems
can
sense
changes
in
environmental
notification
to
the
damage
control
stations
to
number
of
digital
video
surveillance
systems
of
advanced
video
surveillance
systems
are
s of damage, safety to
SCS
is
hierarchical
distributed-control
systems.
[1]
The
SCS
offers
improvements
from
make
intervention.
a
The
decision
whole
without
SCS
the
picture
need
uses
the
of
human
speed
of
of
doctrine
Naval
is
Research
currently
to
being
integrate
developed
shipboard
by
damage
3.
on
board
ship
such
as
the
SABR
model
with
nuclear
required
progressing
to
keep
through
the
out
damage
the
contained
ship.
Fire
and
from
extinguishing
and
CO2
machinery
flooding
spaces
and
systems
combat
will
systems
be
used
spaces.
to
All
FM200
CO2
Water
AFFF
xHanger
xFlight Deck
Rail Gun
Berthing
Galley
Passageways
Aux Machinery
Reactor Room
Magazine Areas
Elect Equip
CIC
Bridge
Paint Lockers
Pump rooms
X
113
AC /
Table 11.
4.
that
will
Installed DC Systems
following
is
description
be
installed
in
the
spaces
of
the
referenced
systems
in
the
previous section.
a. FM-200 Fire Suppression Systems
FM-200 is chemically known as heptafluoropropane,
and is a new Halon alternative agent now in use to protect
essential
applications
traditionally
protected
by
Halon
typically
stored
in
cylinders
or
spheres.
It
is
FM-200
system
operates
similar
to
the
suitable,
such
as
in
CIC,
114
Bridge,
and
electrical
Figure 38.
agent
carbon
dioxide
systems
chosen
in
bank
of
cylinders
and
released
as
needed.
water
mist
system
was
previously
of
fluoro-chemical
115
surfactants,
hydrocarbon
by
the
water
content
of
the
foam,
or
the
foam
it
is
Furthermore,
low-cost
automated
and
AFFF
highly
flooding
efficient
systems
system.
reduce
the
standard
suite
of
chemical,
biological
and
12
threats
briefly
outlines
the
that
SABR
will
likely
biological
attack,
and
hence
the
focus
of
Chemical
Biological
Bacterial,
Nuclear
Table 12.
Blister,
and
Level
Radiation
System
(IPDS)
Improved
is
[Chemical
Agent]
Point
chemical
116
detection
Detection
system
that
The
system
alerts
the
crew
when
chemical
It will
display
units
on
the
bridge
and
in
central
damage
Figure 39.
System
detecting
selected
baffle
tube
(CAPDS).
This
chemical
ionization.
system
agents
Samples
are
in
is
vapor
capable
form
collected
of
using
from
the
Figure 40.
Chemical
Agent
Point
(CAPDS)
b. Biological Detectors
Detection
System
Biological
agent
detector
capable
of
detecting,
It is likely to be placed
118
Figure 41.
Detectors
meter,
based
on
state-of-the-art
semiconductor
for
gamma-dose
rate
is
covered
(10nGy/h-20Gy/h).
NCDS
components
can
be
connected
and
Figure 42.
SVG2
chemical
and
radiological
detection.
It
is
equipped
will
Wash
defense. A CMWDS
also
Down
have
System
an
installed
(CMWDS)
to
aid
Ship
in
CBR
of nozzles that spray salt water onto the weather decks and
other surfaces. The film is designed to retard the further
accumulation
agents.
CMWDS
of
and
are
facilitate
designed
to
contaminants.
120
the
removal
remove
up
of
to
foreign
99
of
Figure 43.
6.
CMWD System
References
[1]
DC-ARM
Control,
NRL
Marks
the
Press
Wave
Release,
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/pao/pressRelease
of
future
Damage
10
March
2002,
http://www.marioff.com/en/fireprotection/index.htm
[4]
Reliable
Fire
Company
web
page,
10
October
2006,
SYSTEMS,
[5]
[6]
October
http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/nbc/bruker/
Oct 06]
121
2002,
[10
D.
Introduction
2.
There
are
numerous
threats
for
naval
combatants
As warships
the
traditional
weapon
systems
due
to
advances
in
maneuvers.
littorals
and
affecting
Expeditionary
Warfare.
The
third
boat
attacks,
low
slow
flyers,
terrorist
action,
technology5.
An
example
of
sideways
technology
thousands
of
miles
away
from
the
radar
{from
4 Mine and Torpedoes are in the same category based on the underwater
environment in which they deliver their payload.
5 Paul Bracken, "Sidewise technology: national security and global
power implications," Military Review, September-October , pp 64-67
122
provide
point
defense
while
not
impeding
the
primary
mission of TBMD.
There is a possibility that the technology for self
defense systems employed on the warships of 2030 and beyond
have not been invented yet. Some weapons to consider would
be
of
the
direct
energy
type.
combination
of
radio
would
form
the
longer
range
layer
while
lasers
would form the short range layer. The all electric ships
proposed
for
the
future
and
for
SABR
would
provide
the
the
ideal
approach
to
project
the
type
of
threat
threats
from
the
littorals.
The
weapon
and
that
stand
off
distances
from
littorals
is
123
capabilities
to
conduct
passive
and
active
Therefore there is
will
to
not
be
equipped
defend
against
small
boat
Even
the
if
the
radiation
other
of
two
SOTS
assumptions
radar
would
were
make
IV. SABR will not have more that four weapon systems for
point
defense.
minimizing
crew
Some
of
size,
the
lower
reasons
for
this
maintenance,
are;
weight
124
VI. The threat scenario that was used for the analysis: an
attack
by
two
subsonic
cruise
missiles
with
VII. The
missile
firing
doctrine
is
Shoot-Shoot-Look-
Shoot.
As
stated
in
the
assumptions,
the
worst
case
scenario the rail gun and the SOTR would be fully engaged
with TBMD and be unavailable for self defense against an
attack.
and
Goalkeeper
gunnery
systems
while
systems
the
other
are
comparable
systems
are
The
machine
comparable
missiles systems.
a. Phalanx
A
fast-reaction,
rapid-fire
20-millimeter
gun
functions
usually
125
performed
by
separate,
independent
systems
such
as
search,
detection,
threat
autonomous
system,
developed
defense
of
by
ships
and
the
against
completely
automatic
Netherlands
highly
for
weapon
short-range
maneuverable
missiles,
medium-range,
rapid-reaction,
missile
weapon
anti-ship
missiles,
and
airborne
and
surface
employs
AIM/RIM-7
air/surface-to-surface
Sparrow
III
semi-active
series,
homing
surface-to-
missiles.
The
rear
system)
reference
for
RF
developing
(transmitted
missile
from
wing
the
movement
director
orders
high
speed
close-range
anti-missile
with
self-defense
system
which
will
provide
an
Cueing
is
provided
by
the
ships
ESM
suite
or
13
displays
quantitative
Table 9
displays
quantitative
attributes
comparing the
five different
systems.
Phalanx
Goalkeeper
NATO Sea
Sparrow
Shots Prior
to Reload
Range
Max (m)
1550
1190
8
2000
2000
19000
attributes
comparing
Detection
Range
(km)
Firing
Rate
Shot/min
Cost/unit
($M)
10
10
100
3000
4200
30
3.5
7
127
Range
Min (m)
100
100
100
0
127
Missile
Seawolf
10000
RAM
21
6500
150
50
60
10
100
Various8
12
11
0
Table 13.
the
of
survival
can
be
This is a tool
utilization
of
counter
measures
such
as
actual
quantitative
values
for
these
countermeasures
128
compared
the
benefits
of
The analysis of
using
different
is
more
is
costly
than
the
Phalanx
This
system
3.
systems
the
that
continuously
military
attempt
been
in
context,
to
a
see
costly
the
the
radar
and
adversary,
competition.
the
have
Military
techniques
conversely
more
that
reduce
sensitive
RCS
to
radars
counter
have
radars
evolved
to
and
detect
military
reduction
spending,
diminishing
RCS
returns.
Once
the
raises
specular
the
question
scatter
of
of
radar
sources
are
costly
to
reduce
at
minimal
no
characteristics
longer
limited
to
of
the
low
RCS
of
observable
a
target
platform.
With
the
Arleigh
Burke
class
Destroyer,
is
prime
to
Richard
R.
Brooks
of
California
State
University,
"Sensor
integration
is
merging
representation.
sensors
can
multiple
The
provide
inputs
processing
targeting
of
with
data
from
information.
common
different
With
this
in
RCS
and
focused
more
on
achieving
an
optimum
Countermeasure
of
new
US
projects.
fighter
The
aircraft
electronic
particularly
warfare
the
Air
systems
that
cover
ECM
and
intelligence,
in
history
[2].
Advances
130
in
signal
processing
and
electronic
miniaturization
can
be
attributed
to
the
new
capabilities.
A recent example of cost due to RCS reduction can
be found in the design of the F-22. Initial estimates of
the impact of changing the F-22's radar signature to US Air
Force requirements included an additional $20-$25 million
and approximately 170 pounds of added weight. The redesign
also required removing more than half of the corners of
specially
designed
landing
gear
and
weapon
bay
doors,
80
percent
of
the
drain
underside [2].
131
holes
in
the
aircraft's
air-launched,
sea-launched
(surface
and
MM40
Block
and
Block
surface-to-
MM40
Block
(surface-to-surface
and
coastal attack)
The
Exocet
is
an
inexpensive
solution
to
most
or
specific
offensive
endeavors
against
United
FAS
Military
Analysis
Network
provide
the
estimated
assumptions
for
the
problem
are
as
zero.
The
missile
incorporates
an
inertial
Exocet.
Ship
self-defense
132
systems
are
not
missiles
terminal
homing
is
the
only
portion
of
Pr =
( 4 )
RBT =
Pj =
(0.1)
R4
PG
t t Gr
Pj G j 4
(0.2)
PjG jGr 2
( 4 R )
(0.3)
Combining
an
RCS
increase
in
reduction
platform
and
jamming
survivability
is
of
the
power
to
effectiveness
133
obtain
the
same
jamming
method
for
determining
the
50th
the
RCS
of
ship
by
percentile
value
of
the
radar
cross
= 52
Sigma
is
the
radar
( f ) ( D3 )
cross
section
(0.4)
in
square
Rmax =
( 4 )
2
PG
t t Gr
3
(0.5)
Figure 45.
maximum
empirical
the
equation
RCS
was
1.4,
calculated.
the
CG
The
47
reason
class
the
cruiser
RCS
was
the
CG
47,
and
the
DDG-1000
initial
design
is
Displacement
(TONS)
9,600
8,315
1,400
135
Empirical
RCS (m2)
154,670
3,093
61.86
burn
were
through,
and
calculated
jamming
from
the
to
signal
parameters
ratio
given
(JSR)
on
the
Table 15.
1.38 10-23 J K
T0
BRI
Gt
Gr
SNR
290 K
1 MHz
30 dB
30 dB
20 dB
5 dB
10 GHz
and
the
seekers
ability
to
burn
through
jamming equations 1.2 and 1.3 are used. (Given that the
shipboard jammer power is 100 W and gain of 30dB)
Table 16.
Range
Maximum
Missile
Seeker
and
Burn
Through
SHIP
Max Range
Burn-Through Range
CG 47
61.01 km
175.42 m
DDG 51
22.94 km
24.81 m
DDG-1000
8.63 km
3.51 m
136
target.
The
DDG
51
is
the
middle
ground
between
the
Received Power from The CG 47, DDG 51, and DD(X) RCS @ Range 10km
200
CG47
DDG51
DDX
150
100
50
-50
-100
-150
0
Figure 46.
Figure
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Range (m)
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
demonstrates
that
the
DDG-1000
can
scale
mask
the
seekers
ability
137
to
detect
target
up
80
70
60
50
Power (dB)
40
30
20
10
0
CG47
DDG51
DDX
-10
-20
0
Figure 47.
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Range (m)
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
The JSR for all three warships is greater than one for
the duration of the terminal phase. Sophisticated missile
seekers may detect active ECM and switch to an infrared or
other
optical
demonstrates
sensors
that
the
for
target
shipboard
discernment.
active
ECM
138
at
Figure
100
4
of
c. Conclusion
RCS
reduction
combined
with
ECM
techniques
can
vulnerable.
Reducing
platform
RCS
increases
the
d. References
[1] D.C. Jenn, "Radar Cross Section," in 2nd ed.,
vol. 1, Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 2005, pp. XV.
[2]
D.A.
Fulghum,
"F-22
fix
to
cost
$20-25
Electronic
Warfare
and
Radar
Systems
Engineering
Retreived
from:
http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang
=EN&noeu_id=108
139
have
no
collection
analytical
of
solution.
software
lucernhammer
tools
for
is
calculating
results
techniques
fields,
simplify
were
that
surface
the
calculated
make
using
assumptions
currents,
scattering
and
use
equations
High
about
these
[1].
The SABR
Frequency
the
(HF)
behavior
of
assumptions
to
Lucernhammer
MT
140
Figure 48.
Table 17.
Average
dBsm
31
42.6
.
dBsm
versus
azimuth
at
constant
elevation.
Table
141
Table
15
is
compilation
of
RCS
values
from
= 52
Table 18.
(0.6)
Empirical RCS
SHIP
CG 47
DDG 51
DD(X)
SABR
*The
( f ) ( D3 )
average
Displacement
(TONS)
9,600
8,3.15
1,400
RCS
for
the
Empirical
RCS (m2)
154,670
3,093
61.86
1,259*
X-band
emitter
from
lucernhammer calculations
SABR has the second least RCS signature out of the
four ships. The significance of this observation can be
seen from Figure 40.
Figure 49.
RCS signature
142
2
PG
t t Gr
( 4 )
Rmax =
Equation
is
(0.8),
is
radar
the
(0.9)
2
PG
t t Gr
(0.7)
via
the
( 4 R )
( 4 )
scatter
(0.8)
PjG jGr 2
target
(0.7)
R4
PG
t t Gr
Pj G j 4
RBT =
Pj =
(0.10)
the
two-way
power
range
burn-through
received
equation,
equation,
and
from
Equation
Equation
(0.7)
to
Equation
(0.10)
is
the
the
one-way
maximum
143
radar
range
range
a
equation.
specific
seeker
By
Combining
techniques,
an
RCS
increase
in
reduction
platform
and
jamming
survivability
is
self-screening
or
standoff
jammer
that
The
burn-through
range
becomes
25
percent
The
radar's
detection
range
is
reduced
by
effort
to
reduce
the
ship's
RCS
is
aimed
144
f. References
[1]
W.
lucernhammer,"
C.
Gibson,
"User's
Manual
For
American
Institute
of
Aeronautics
and
Section
M.
J.
Holguin,
Reduction
and
"The
Combination
other
of
Electronic
Radar
Warfare
2005.
Naval
Air
Systems
Command,
"Electronic
145
E.
Introduction
The
purpose
of
SABR
is
Theater
Ballistic
Missile
example
of
two
systems
that
are
revolutionary
and
to
operate
these
systems
is
difficult
and
an
Information
Center
(CIC).
Although
significant
systems
engineering
Integration (HSI).
process
and
Human
Systems
concluding
recommendations
for
HSI
and
future
manning
plan
TSSE
projects
2.
HSI Approach
Developing
the
optimal
shipboard
is
critical process for new and old navy warships. The most
expensive asset in the US Navy is the personnel that serve
ashore
and
afloat.
In
recent
years,
there
have
been
were
available
and
what
146
processes
to
account
for
simulation
capabilities
in
the
HSI
community
was
micro-level.
Macro-level
pertains
to
the
overall
detailed
enough
shipboard
system
for
both
(NSFS).
The
increases
fire
secondary
mission
rail
support
gun
and
while
is
thus
conducting
also
can
a
be
TBMD.
weapon
that
considered
A
comparative
areas.
The
Aegis
Guided
Missile
Cruiser
is
inclusive
and
manning
can
increase
or
decrease
10 HSI Considerations for the SABR Project TSSE 2006, IMPRINT Seminar
NPS,18 Jul 2006
147
depending
current
on
the
Aegis
operations
Cruiser,
being
both
conducted.
missions
are
For
the
completely
the
AD
team
could
combine
the
Missile
System
the
Combat
Systems
Coordinator
and
the
Radar
System
Controller.
CG 47 Class Air Defense Manning
Force Tactical Action Officer
Force Anti Air Warfare Coordinator
Ship Anti Air Warfare Coordinator
SHIP Tactical Action Officer
Missile System Supervisor
Red Crown
Electronic Warfare Control Officer
Identification Supervisor
Radar System Controller
Combat System Coordinator
Figure 50.
Generic
Aegis Cruiser [1]
Total
notional
Air
Defense
manning
is
Manning
ten
CG
47
Class
personnel.
With
148
of
people.
The
remaining
portion
of
the
HSI
brief
will
1
1
1
MT 51 Capt
MT 52 Capt
MT 51 Capt
MT 51 handling
room
MT 52 handling
room
MT 51 Ammo
Handlers
MT 52 Ammo
Handlers
MT 51 Gun
repairman
MT 52 Gun
repairman
Total
Mission Total
Figure 51.
#
1
1
1
1
1
Lookouts 2
BMOW
1
plotters
1
talkers
7
7
7
35
12
60
3.
There
are
several
software
tools
that
have
been
to
the
wayside,
no
longer
supported.
Others
have
evaluate
manpower
needs
for
several
decades
and
the
human
systems
in
the
1970's.
The
Navy
began
tools
developed
for
the
program
DD-21.
The
DD-21
and
DOD.
Manpower
became
key
performance
parameter
them
to
system
performance
requirements,
and
research
manpower
and
modeling
timeframe.
These
development
tools
of
efforts
are
efforts
the
evolved
DD-21
important
from
program
to
note,
the
early
because
needs
macro-level,
for
warship
micro-level,
designs.
These
operational,
tools
and
combine
maintenance
considerations.
The
objective
of
Manpower
Modeling
is
to
provide
not
equate
to
direct
elimination
of
billets.
watches,
collateral
duties,
and
policy
Figure 52.
4.
the
research
phase
of
the
HSI
Micro
Saint
(Sharp).
Micro
Saint
is
general
An account of how
IMPRINT
IMPRINT
is
stochastic
task-network
modeling
tool
system
field
performance
testing
and
from
system
concept
and
improvements
design
[3].
through
The
most
concerned
mental
function
after
with
workload
allocations
[3]
lists
manning
while
testing
[3].
the
to
Figure
all
the
evaluate
operator
alternate
(IMPRINT
data
input
and
system-crew
input
matrix
options
for
IMPRINT models
Figure 53.
Watchstander Model
The
WSM
was
developed
from
the
Office
of
Naval
definition
and
workload
calculations
are
conducted.
flows
are
then
determined
and
then
each
team
153
Figure 54.
7.
the
events
are
Typical
length
scenario.
updated
scenarios
in
Crew
order
assignments
in
are
to
the
TCM
fourteen
capture
and
mission
scenario
every
fifteen
minutes.
to
the
twenty-eight
cumulative
days
in
effects
of
size,
skill
sets,
work
schedules,
evolution
task
154
crew
underway
operations
constraints
complement
and
crew
and
can
successfully
do
so
fatigue
within
levels.
accomplish
acceptable
Adjustments
all
time
may
be
Figure 55.
Total
interest [4]
The
analysis
Crew
metrics
Model
for
TCM
Simulation
are
ships
SMART B3
155
Data
of
schedule,
detailed
includes
specific
actions.
to
A
maintenance
defining
equipment,
scenario
is
and
skill
system
set
data.
The
parameters
that
are
compartments
developed
and
within
maintenance
Gantt
chart
requirement,
requirements,
operational
personnel
and
conflicts,
directed
crew
man-hour
composition
and
To
summarize,
discrete
event
IMPRINT
network
is
modeling
dynamic,
tool
stochastic
designed
to
help
the
system
lifecycle--from
concept
and
design
through field testing and system upgrades. WSM is a microlevel design tool that conducts detailed workload analysis
for watchstanders, and provides empirical data on low level
task and performance. TCM is a macro-level design tool that
conducts high level workload and crew activity analysis for
the
entire
ships
resiliency.
provides
between
It
crew.
identifies
empirical
manpower,
data
It
considers
manpower
resource
identifying
scenarios,
and
fatigue
the
and
drivers
crew
and
relationships
performance.
SMART
B3
aspects
of
ship
manning.
It
includes
for
manning
identification.
156
This
research
included
Army
multiple
Research
phone
Laboratory,
conferences
literature
with
searches,
and
managers
at
program
hindsight,
the
proper
process
for
conducting
this
micro-level
simulation
model
in
IMPRINT,
create and simulate models for each unit on the ship. The
watch
stations
functions,
would
tasks,
and
be
broken
mission
down
into
requirements
members,
following
the
The outcome
The
discussion
change
of
in
personnel
combining
members
would
of
be
the
similar
AD
team
to
the
at
the
11.
Recommendations
topic
partnership
for
with
the
the
HSI
HSI
curriculum
Department
students.
at
the
A
Naval
that
make
the
TSSE
Ship
Design
Project
more
12.
References
Navy
158
E.
COST ANALYSIS
The
DD(X)
cost
and
prediction
CG(X).
The
was
cost
based
on
similar
prediction
of
costs
this
of
project
two
driving
force
for
cost
of
the
BMD(X)
are
the
The
costs for the propulsion and rail gun are estimated costs
since the technology has not fully developed. The BMD(X)
does have an lower operating cost than the CG(X) and DD(X)
due to the reduce missions that are carried onboard.
Table 19.
Table 20.
160
VI.
DESIGN EVALUATION
In addition, it produced a
Sea
Base,
Specifically,
amphibious
support.
the
combat
which
Joint
no
ACCESS
cargo
while
current
vessel
delivers
providing
joint
can
do.
forces
expeditionary
as Figure 86 demonstrates.
Figure 56.
Joint ACCESS Name and Ship Seal
A.
PRIMARY MISSION EVALUATION
The
Joint
ACCESS
satisfies
the
high
speed
assault
Table 21.
two
BLTs
(~8000LT
Cargo).
Transport the two BLTs 200nm Each ship can make the 200nm
in one 10 hour period
than
hours
and
can
offload in 2 hours.
Interface with the Sea Base RO-RO capable stern gate and
and the beach.
ramp
35m floating
allows
for
cargo
loading/unloading
at
the
beach.
Support amphibious operations Flexible combat systems suite
ashore in addition to payload provides
defensive
and
delivery.
offensive capabilities.
Conduct independent
Self-sustaining for up to 10
operations.
Flight
deck,
elevator,
and
areas
flight
deck
helicopter
hangar
flexible
cargo
large
allow
multi-mission
capabilities.
In addition to satisfying the above requirements, the
Jint ACCESS can effectively augment the MPF(F) ships during
seabasing operations.
to embark 260 troops and their gear and transport them from
the forward logistics site or CONUS to the Sea Base.
Thus
SECONDARY MISSIONS
In addition to the capabilities inherent in the Joint
and
other
traditional
SOF
missions.
While
SOF
elements,
along
with
mobility
assets
and
Figure 57.
2.
reliance
on
host
nation
basing
or
over
flight
rights.
3.
The
Joint
ACCESS
high-speed,
its
capability
to
the
JFC
to
deliver
initial
forces
and
relief
supplies.
Figure 58.
Example
Humanitarian
Operations Loadout
4.
Theater Security Cooperation
With
activities
the
as
growing
a
importance
critical
element
164
and
Evacuation
of
theater
engagement
of
the
Global
War
on
As naval
Maritime Interdiction
them
to
be
rapidly
configured
to
conduct
these
supporting operations.
C.
RISK ASSESSMENT
C.
CONCLUSIONS
The 2004 TSSE design team acknowledges that it was
believes
displacement
that
craft
such
to
as
achieve
the
165
the
Joint
However, the
HSAC
ACCESS
mission,
need
to
be
166
APPENDIX I
TS4002
2006 Capstone Design Project
June, 2006
172
APPENDIX II
REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
173
174
175
176
177
178
Stakeholder Signatures:
TSSE Course Coordinator:__________________________________
SEA-9 Course Coordinator:_________________________________
TSSE Group Leader:_______________________________________
SEA-9 Group Leader:______________________________________
Introduction
Background
Problem statement:
To develop and evaluate a
conceptualized ship-based BMD system architecture to meet
emerging short
and medium
range ballistic
missile
threat capability in the 2025-2030 time frame. The system
must be able to integrate with prospective coalition BMD
architectures and contribute to the whole of layered BMD.
3.
Requirements:
Rapidly deployable Sea Based Platform capable of
prolonged operations.
Stable platform capable of operations in heavy seas.
Detect and track over the horizon ballistic missile
launch and flight path.
Share real-time sensor, weapon, fire control, and BDA
data among coalition forces.
Prioritize threats and optimally pair assets with
highest probability of kill.
Designate targets with a low probability of kill to
other assets.
Optimal and Threshold Performance Parameters:
System should combine radar range, interceptor
range, ship range and speed, and number of units
for an optimal coverage area of 4000 nm (500
threshold).
The seaframe's endurance, seakeeping ability,
magazine capacity, reliability, and logistics
support should combine to allow for an optimal
180
4.
Maximum Speed:
30 knots or greater in calm seas
at full load with 80% of installed
power.
Patrolling Speed:
5 knots or greater in calm seas at
full load.
Maneuvering Speed:
2 knots or less in clam
water.
Endurance:
30
days
at
patrolling
speed
(unreplenished) with burnt-out levels
(10% of usable volume) of fuel, water, and stores
still onboard.
Stability:
The design shall meet the intact and
damaged stability criteria for ocean-going ships based on
US Navy DDS 079-1.
The intact beam wind criteria shall be
100 knots.
Seakeeping:
the ship shall meet the following
seakeeping requirements at a speed of 12 knots in sea state
5:
182
Motion
Limit
Location
Roll
8 *
Center of
Gravity
Pitch
3 *
Center of Gravity
Vertical Acceleration
0.4 g*
Bridge
Lateral Acceleration
0.2 g*
Bridge
Slams
20/hr
station 3
Deck Wetness
30/hr
station 0
*Note:
Significant (average of the 1/3 highest)
value.
Personnel:
Crewing
should
be
minimized
while
maintaining a sufficient number of officer and crew to
carry out mission in a safe manner for the duration of
patrol.
Structure:
The design shall comply with commercial
standards such as ABS.
Propulsion:
Use any foresee ably probable technology
and
subsystems
while
emphasizing
automation
and
reliability.
Engines
must
be
capable
of
using
a
logistically supportable fuel.
Electric Plant: Install at least two SSGs with enough
capacity to support 130% of the power requirements
determined by electrical load analysis.
If an Integrated
Power System (IPS) is used to support propulsion needs, the
25% propulsion power margin may not be used for electrical
load or margin.
All sensitive electronic gear will have
back-up uninterruptible power supply (UPS).
Install one
emergency generator.
Equipment shall include but not be
Navigation:
limited to two gyro compasses, two alidades, one magnetic
compass, navigation radar, weather fax, global positioning
system,
electronic
and
manual
plotting
capabilities,
electronic display and information system (ECDIS), and
remote cameras to see astern if 360 vision is not possible
from the bridge. Automation and technology should be used
where applicable.
183
Voice Communications:
Civilian and military,
and secure HF/VHF/UHF/SHF radios, satellite.
Link 16, CIX:
command
Data Links:
network between coalition forces, Internet.
and
clear
control
C2 Capability:
Automated Battle Management System
(AMBS)
Two planning functions
Plan pre-positioning of ships in group:
where
each ship should be to guarantee best chances to
defend assuming specific scenarios.
Plan fire allocation to targets:
how many
interceptors at which time from which ship should
engage each of the targets
Optimize fire allocation
Dynamic
programming
algorithm
for
real-time
allocation of interceptor to targets in imperfect
detection and decoys environment.
Based on:
Sensors performance
Decoy-BM discrimination capability
Interceptor capabilities and stocks
Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components
Surface and Air Search Radar: Conformable skin of the
ship radar (SOTSR) assisted by integrated multi-function
phased array (MFPA) giving an effective detection range of
2000 NM.
HVAC:
Provide for air conditioning the following
spaces:
pilot house, navigation, interior communications,
radio room, berthing, messing, sanitary, galley, workshops,
and offices. Other spaces will have ventilation only.
Capable of holding the ship in a 100
Anchor System:
knot wind and 5 knot current in a water depth of 200 feet.
Firefighting:
Suitable firefighting systems shall be
installed to address A, B, C, or D fire* in accessible
areas. The firemain should be able to provide 100
gallons/minute through two nozzles that are at the end of a
100 foot fire hose (1.5 inch diameter), leading from the
highest fire station on the vessel. The engine room must
have an AFFF and Halon system at a minimum.
184
*Note:
Fire class definitions can be found in the
NFPA publications or NSTM 555.
Habitability Requirements:
Officer Berthing and CPO
Berthing shall consist of 2 person rooms. Crew Berthing
shall allow for segregated berthing compartments for a
male/female crew ratio of 4:1.
Extra berths shall be
provided for AVDETS, or other specialized teams. The
following
space
allocation
is
considered
a
minimum
threshold:
Space
Sq.ft/Person
Captain berthing
150
Executive Officer berthing
125
Officer berthing
70
Officer messing/lounge
20
Officer sanitary
15
CPO berthing
40
CPO messing
20
CPO sanitary
10
Crew berthing
25
Crew messing
3
Crew sanitary
5
Administrative
1
Food prep/handling
3
Laundry
1
Personal Effects Weight Allowances:
Officers
400 lbs/person
CPOs
350 lbs/person
Crew
250 lbs/person
Armament:
Optimum ballistic missile interceptor:
Rail Gun (2 mounts)
Max effective range: 4400 km (to apex)
Firing rate: 16-20 rounds/min/mount
Magazine size: Minimum of 600 interceptors per mount
Interceptor detail: 2 kg, 10 km/sec muzzle velocity
Threshold ballistic missile interceptor:
Rail Gun (1 mount)
Max effective range: 2400 km (to apex)
Firing rate: 5-10 rounds/min/mount
Magazine size: Minimum of 600 interceptors per mount
Interceptor detail: 2 kg, 6 km/sec muzzle velocity
185
The
differences
between
optimum
and
threshold
interceptors reflect the gap between the costumers desires
and
the
realities
of
physics
and
hypersonic-flow
properties. Every effort will be made to meet the optimum
requirement levels.
However, if that level of technology
does not prove to be feasible, the design will include a
less capable (threshold-level) railgun system, or an
equally capable missile interceptor system.
Force protection:
(4) twin 50 Caliber machine gun
mounts
Self defense:
appropriate close in weapons system
(CIWS)
Signature:
An effort should be made to reduce the
radar
cross-section,
acoustic,
visual
and
thermal
signatures of the vessel without greatly reducing mission
capability or efficiency.
Stores Requirements:
Stowage shall be provided for
consumable stores as required by the vessels endurance of
30 days (unreplenished) based upon the following standards:
General Stores
0.118 cuft/person/day
1.94 lbs/person/day
Dry Provisions
0.134 cuft/person/day
3.2 lbs/person/day
Chilled Provisions
0.081 cuft/person/day
1.65 lbs/person/day
Frozen Provisions
0.041 cuft/person/day
1.11 lbs/person/day
Potable Water Storage
15,000 gallons
Aviation Fuel Storage
20,000 gallons
186
APPENDIX IV
vers
Rank
(5,3,1)
System Characteristics
coverage area
probability of kill
autom ation
equipment reliability
low m aintenance m aterial
m inim um m anning
m ax speed
sprint range
basing (pre-deploy)
rapidly deployable
construction material
m anning
m anning
additional weapons system s
multi m ission
187
signature
redundant system s
floodable length
DC capabilities
survivability
6+ m onths (replenished)
1-6 m onths (replenished)
1 m onth (unreplenished)
1 week-1 month (unreplenished)
< 1 week
.99 (last resort system )
.50 (first in layered defense)
< 5% of 2006 m anning standard
5-25%
25-50%
50-75%
>75%
On scene in 12 hours
24 hours
48 hours
one week
two weeks
Com parable to CV
CG
LCS
Multi-m ission
BMD + SUW
BMD plus self defense
BMD only
stealth / redundant systems / counterm easure
redundant system s / counterm easures
shall m eet m inim um US Navy criteria for stabil
Time on station
(ready to respond)
11.04
Multi mission
survivability
8.44
11.04
Multi mission
survivability
1.933
1.706
2.231
1.706
1.308
1.133
1.000
1.308
1.000
1.000
2.538
2.200
1.941
2.538
1.941
0.765
0.394
1.000
0.867
0.765
1.000
0.765
0.517
0.882
0.455
1.154
1.000
0.882
1.154
0.882
0.586
1.000
0.515
1.308
1.133
1.000
1.308
1.000
Multi mission
0.448
0.765
0.394
1.000
0.867
0.765
1.000
0.765
survivability
0.586
1.000
0.515
1.308
1.133
1.000
1.308
1.000
5.3
9.1
4.7
11.8
10.3
9.1
11.8
9.1
Characteristics
Coverage Area
Priority
18.83
Characteristics
Coverage Area
Time on station
(ready to respond)
Pk
Coverage Area
1.000
1.706
0.879
2.231
Time on station
(ready to respond)
0.586
1.000
0.515
Pk
1.138
1.941
Minimum manning
0.448
Rapidly deployable
Sum
Pk
21.43
8.44
9.74
AHP
Coverage Area
Time on station
(ready to respond)
Pk
Coverage Area
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
Time on station
(ready to respond)
0.110
0.110
0.110
Pk
0.214
0.214
Minimum manning
0.084
Rapidly deployable
Multi mission
survivability
Average
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.188
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.214
0.214
0.214
0.214
0.214
0.214
0.214
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.097
0.097
0.097
0.097
0.097
0.097
0.097
0.097
0.097
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
Multi mission
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.084
survivability
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Sum
C. COST MODEL
188
1.0
189
APPENDIX V
A.
final
design
and
ship
geometrical
and
648.43
615.892
11233.910
ft
ft
LT
Displacement ()
Max Draft (T)
Draft (T) at FP
Draft (T) at AP
Beam (B)
BWL
Volume
Length/Beam (L/B)
Beam/Draft (B/T)
Displacement/length
12580.96
16.5
14.8
5.5
78.4
77.705
393265.300
7.86
4.713
48.086
tons
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft3
Displacement/length
59.265
Tons/ft
TPI
LTPI
MTI
LCB (aft)
LCF (aft)
VCB
Waterplane Area
Wetted Area
Cp
Cb
Cm
Cw
KG
90.676
80.961
347057.4
345.783a
367.053a
10.44
34,010.26
43,644.880
0.58
0.495
0.853
0.711
15.9
tons/inch
LT/inch
LT-ft/deg
ft
ft
ft
ft2
ft2
LT
LT/ft
(/L)
(/L)
190
ft
KB
KMt
KML
BMt
BMl
GMt
GML
Trim
Heel
Table 22.
ship
characteristics
10.248
42.359
1,840.323
32.111
1831.075
26.459
1824.423
0.07
0.00
geometrical
and
191
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
(o aft)
(o )
hydrostatic
Volume
ft3
75.46
1,093.10
3,575.30
7,071.18
11,636.76
17,213.06
23,784.95
31,194.00
39,375.21
48,303.14
57,976.49
68,348.56
79,395.02
91,022.45
103,206.9
115,856.5
128,995.9
142,597.8
156,612.3
171,071.2
185,919.2
201,096.6
216,654.4
232,508.8
248,587.5
264,830.2
281,204.3
297,699.6
314,283.4
330,954.5
347,709.3
364,548.8
381,481.7
393265.30
Cp
0.568
0.611
0.632
0.533
0.510
0.398
0.412
0.426
0.439
0.449
0.459
0.467
0.474
0.481
0.486
0.490
0.494
0.497
0.499
0.500
0.502
0.502
0.510
0.519
0.527
0.535
0.542
0.549
0.555
0.561
0.566
0.571
0.576
0.58
Cb
0.212
0.254
0.329
0.308
0.308
0.247
0.271
0.291
0.307
0.320
0.330
0.339
0.351
0.361
0.370
0.376
0.382
0.387
0.390
0.395
0.400
0.404
0.412
0.422
0.431
0.440
0.448
0.456
0.463
0.471
0.478
0.484
0.490
0.495
192
Coefficients
Cms
Cwp
0.373 0.629
0.415 0.719
0.520 0.718
0.578 0.643
0.603 0.621
0.620 0.492
0.658 0.530
0.683 0.557
0.700 0.578
0.711 0.596
0.719 0.608
0.726 0.623
0.740 0.637
0.751 0.647
0.760 0.654
0.767 0.659
0.773 0.662
0.778 0.663
0.782 0.665
0.790 0.667
0.797 0.669
0.803 0.671
0.809 0.677
0.814 0.685
0.819 0.689
0.823 0.692
0.826 0.694
0.830 0.697
0.835 0.700
0.840 0.702
0.844 0.704
0.847 0.707
0.851 0.709
0.853 0.711
Cvp
0.337
0.353
0.458
0.479
0.495
0.501
0.511
0.523
0.531
0.536
0.542
0.544
0.551
0.558
0.565
0.571
0.577
0.583
0.587
0.592
0.598
0.602
0.609
0.616
0.626
0.635
0.645
0.654
0.662
0.671
0.678
0.685
0.692
0.698
WS Area
Cws
ft2
7.628
686.83
9.072 3,835.57
7.112 5,969.50
5.983 8,213.27
5.409 10,258.56
4.562 12,360.25
4.405 14,256.90
4.244 15,962.41
4.123 17,660.13
4.021 19,320.73
3.916 20,869.34
3.828 22,412.05
3.741 23,873.46
3.659 25,272.82
3.566 26,507.66
3.491 27,782.65
3.424 29,044.46
3.355 30,225.20
3.301 31,464.81
3.250 32,687.04
3.200 33,855.25
3.155 35,031.84
3.126 36,107.89
3.098 37,073.97
3.062 37,891.75
3.026 38,649.70
2.992 39,379.86
2.961 40,093.49
2.932 40,792.32
2.906 41,484.25
2.881 42,161.52
2.860 42,851.74
2.841 43,541.49
2.823 43,644.88
0.0
1.0
Prismatic(Cp)
Block(Cb)
Midship(Cms)
Water Plane(Cwp)
Vol. ft^3
WS Area ft^2
Vert. Prismatic (Cvp)
Wet Surface (Cws)
0
Vol. ft^3 x 100000
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
193
4.0
2.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
4.0
8.0
5.0
9.0
10.0
Hydrostatic Properties
Trim:
194
LCF
(ft)
282.283a
292.911a
296.714a
296.196a
299.006a
300.428a
301.166a
302.753a
305.170a
308.058a
310.973a
314.862a
318.343a
322.529a
327.025a
331.933a
336.366a
341.135a
346.255a
350.753a
355.400a
360.361a
363.651a
365.997a
367.161a
367.770a
368.119a
368.278a
368.244a
368.054a
367.754a
367.429a
367.053a
LCF
TPI
Draft (LT/inch)
(ft)
0.5
1.593
1.0
8.953
1.5
14.070
2.0
19.304
2.5
24.103
3.0
29.011
3.5
33.349
4.0
37.200
4.5
40.902
5.0
44.535
5.5
47.939
6.0
51.450
6.5
54.378
7.0
57.123
7.5
59.585
8.0
61.991
8.5
64.170
9.0
66.310
9.5
68.467
10.0
70.320
10.5
72.094
11.0
73.894
11.5
75.219
12.0
76.312
12.5
77.093
13.0
77.729
13.5
78.281
14.0
78.770
14.5
79.178
15.0
79.552
15.5
79.933
16.0
80.317
16.5
80.961
195
MTI
(LT-ft
/deg)
183.810
2544.567
6089.167
13452.560
21938.750
33337.640
47500.990
62166.420
77954.820
94968.640
111603.800
130285.700
147096.300
164369.600
180014.200
195994.700
210697.000
225988.100
242450.600
256851.300
272567.900
290522.800
302691.500
312294.900
318591.900
323290.000
327071.900
330401.000
333443.700
336446.100
339824.500
343457.300
347057.400
KML
(ft)
KMT
(ft)
4,852.252
4,688.533
3,432.205
3,831.177
3,796.990
3,900.975
4,021.128
4,012.606
3,986.326
3,958.838
3,876.355
3,838.636
3,731.399
3,637.348
3,513.802
3,408.513
3,291.497
3,194.098
3,120.497
3,026.923
2,955.997
2,913.147
2,817.755
2,709.552
2,586.126
2,464.139
2,348.511
2,241.688
2,143.583
2,054.548
1,975.774
1,905.216
1,840.323
50.121
238.145
182.612
151.172
138.701
133.299
121.957
111.709
103.551
97.439
92.707
89.194
85.011
80.827
76.990
73.660
70.662
67.975
65.615
63.264
60.834
58.531
56.413
54.503
52.667
50.986
49.459
48.051
46.686
45.427
44.296
43.277
42.359
LCB ft
LCF ft
VCB ft
Displ .LT
LT /inch Imm.
Mom/Deg T ri m
KML
KMT
@
10.0 L
C
F
5.0
0.0
VCB ft x 10
0.0
Displ.LT x 10000
0. 0
LT /i nc h I mm. x 100
0.0
1.0
1. 0
2.0
0.0
1.0
0. 5
0.0
KML x 1000
KMT x 100
0.5
2.0
3. 0
1.0
196
3.0
4. 0
4. 0
5.0
2.0
Trim
Angle
(deg)
0.06a
0.06a
0.06a
0.05a
0.03a
0.02f
0.08f
0.15f
0.24f
0.32f
0.41f
0.43f
0.49f
0.57f
0.64f
0.71f
0.77f
0.82f
0.85f
Origin
Depth
(ft)
16.49
16.40
16.12
15.71
15.18
14.53
13.75
12.81
11.71
10.40
8.93
8.42
7.36
5.69
3.95
2.16
0.31
-1.64
-3.67
Righting
Arm
(ft)
0.00
2.27
4.54
6.72
8.59
10.09
11.22
12.04
12.63
13.06*
13.27*
13.28*
13.23*
12.97*
12.51*
11.90*
11.14*
10.25*
9.26*
197
0.0s
A
r
m
s
Righting Arm
Equilibrium
GMt
10.0
5.0
0.0
Dis
pl (LT)
2.1
77
31.
198
102
.110
201
5.0
00s
14.
777s
12.
664s
11.
464s
10.
10.
000s
15.
960s
17.
444s
16.
640s
15.
15.
000s
20.
777s
19.
214s
18.
681s
18.
20.
000s
20.
333s
20.
114s
19.
462s
18.
198
25.
000s
19.
263s
20.
089s
19.
555s
19.
30.
000s
18.
940s
19.
416s
19.
176s
18.
35.
000s
18.
750s
18.
427s
18.
344s
18.
40.
000s
17.
440s
17.
317s
17.
216s
17.
i
n
f
t
.997
332
.401
.589
491
679
.427
891
.089
4.794
112
137
9.836
6.179
165
195
2.492
226
8.043
0.192
260
294
8.254
330
9.600
4.962
368
407
3.514
3.860
447
488
6.878
531
1.004
4.576
574
618
8.956
664
1.796
1.088
710
756
4.827
803
658s
9.8
06s
8.9
98s
8.2
87s
7.7
10s
7.2
11s
6.7
66s
6.3
60s
5.9
87s
5.6
55s
5.3
58s
5.0
90s
4.8
34s
4.5
96s
4.3
72s
4.1
58s
3.9
61s
3.7
77s
3.6
06s
3.4
44s
3.2
89s
3.1
42s
3.0
02s
2.8
702s
14.
837s
14.
057s
13.
329s
12.
667s
12.
051s
11.
470s
10.
921s
10.
415s
9.9
46s
9.5
10s
9.1
06s
8.7
23s
8.3
62s
8.0
21s
7.7
01s
7.4
00s
7.1
15s
6.8
45s
6.5
85s
6.3
34s
6.0
92s
5.8
62s
5.6
002s
17.
243s
16.
521s
15.
836s
15.
212s
14.
635s
14.
100s
13.
601s
13.
124s
12.
660s
12.
213s
11.
790s
11.
393s
11.
021s
10.
670s
10.
336s
10.
016s
9.7
09s
9.4
14s
9.1
29s
8.8
54s
8.5
89s
8.3
34s
8.0
865s
18.
255s
17.
686s
17.
086s
16.
498s
15.
963s
15.
476s
15.
028s
14.
607s
14.
207s
13.
827s
13.
466s
13.
120s
12.
786s
12.
465s
12.
159s
11.
866s
11.
586s
11.
318s
11.
057s
10.
804s
10.
555s
10.
308s
10.
199
039s
18.
549s
18.
035s
17.
533s
17.
046s
16.
570s
16.
137s
15.
743s
15.
381s
15.
045s
14.
730s
14.
437s
14.
158s
13.
891s
13.
634s
13.
385s
13.
143s
12.
904s
12.
668s
12.
433s
12.
198s
11.
964s
11.
731s
11.
767s
18.
341s
17.
902s
17.
475s
17.
081s
16.
700s
16.
338s
16.
007s
15.
709s
15.
437s
15.
189s
14.
961s
14.
747s
14.
541s
14.
338s
14.
133s
13.
929s
13.
723s
13.
518s
13.
312s
13.
106s
12.
899s
12.
691s
12.
066s
17.
741s
17.
408s
17.
076s
16.
774s
16.
490s
16.
219s
15.
966s
15.
737s
15.
530s
15.
342s
15.
165s
14.
993s
14.
821s
14.
651s
14.
482s
14.
311s
14.
142s
13.
970s
13.
799s
13.
626s
13.
452s
13.
277s
13.
079s
16.
886s
16.
648s
16.
438s
16.
230s
16.
044s
15.
868s
15.
702s
15.
540s
15.
380s
15.
223s
15.
075s
14.
931s
14.
793s
14.
658s
14.
523s
14.
388s
14.
254s
14.
119s
13.
983s
13.
847s
13.
709s
13.
571s
13.
2.681
850
3.864
7.873
897
945
4.318
993
3.053
14.14
104
108
97.58
83.03
113
118
71.20
123
61.84
Dis
pl (LT)
2.1
77
31.
198
102
.110
201
.997
332
.401
491
.589
679
.427
891
.089
112
4.794
137
9.836
165
6.179
195
2.492
226
70s
2.7
49s
2.6
38s
2.5
37s
2.4
45s
2.3
61s
2.2
84s
2.2
14s
2.1
50s
2.0
91s
45.
000s
15.
601s
15.
986s
15.
910s
15.
875s
15.
825s
15.
756s
15.
621s
15.
522s
15.
429s
15.
338s
15.
228s
15.
106s
14.
44s
5.4
38s
5.2
45s
5.0
64s
4.8
95s
4.7
37s
4.5
90s
4.4
55s
4.3
30s
4.2
14s
50.
000s
13.
819s
14.
484s
14.
502s
14.
556s
14.
627s
14.
688s
14.
709s
14.
698s
14.
665s
14.
605s
14.
534s
14.
455s
14.
88s
7.8
52s
7.6
25s
7.4
06s
7.1
95s
6.9
92s
6.7
97s
6.6
09s
6.4
29s
6.2
57s
55.
000s
12.
461s
12.
878s
13.
030s
13.
167s
13.
352s
13.
547s
13.
689s
13.
729s
13.
714s
13.
687s
13.
658s
13.
620s
13.
064s
9.8
24s
9.5
87s
9.3
54s
9.1
26s
8.9
03s
8.6
86s
8.4
74s
8.2
67s
8.0
66s
60.
000s
11.
041s
11.
266s
11.
542s
11.
803s
12.
101s
12.
374s
12.
525s
12.
588s
12.
618s
12.
631s
12.
631s
12.
637s
12.
200
500s
11.
272s
11.
047s
10.
825s
10.
606s
10.
390s
10.
177s
9.9
68s
9.7
62s
9.5
61s
65.
000s
9.2
18s
9.6
07s
10.
145s
10.
570s
10.
894s
11.
109s
11.
233s
11.
354s
11.
422s
11.
482s
11.
525s
11.
563s
11.
483s
12.
277s
12.
073s
11.
872s
11.
674s
11.
480s
11.
288s
11.
100s
10.
915s
10.
733s
102s
12.
928s
12.
755s
12.
584s
12.
415s
12.
249s
12.
087s
11.
927s
11.
771s
11.
617s
433s
13.
296s
13.
160s
13.
026s
12.
895s
12.
766s
12.
641s
12.
523s
12.
410s
12.
302s
8.043
260
0.192
8.254
294
330
9.600
368
4.962
3.514
407
447
3.860
6.878
488
531
1.004
574
4.576
8.956
618
664
1.796
710
1.088
4.827
756
803
2.681
3.864
850
897
7.873
945
4.318
3.053
993
104
14.14
108
97.58
83.03
113
118
71.20
123
981s
14.
860s
14.
745s
14.
634s
14.
527s
14.
425s
14.
324s
14.
225s
14.
128s
14.
031s
13.
935s
13.
838s
13.
742s
13.
647s
13.
550s
13.
454s
13.
362s
13.
278s
13.
199s
13.
122s
13.
043s
12.
963s
12.
880s
12.
372s
14.
289s
14.
211s
14.
138s
14.
068s
14.
001s
13.
936s
13.
876s
13.
819s
13.
765s
13.
713s
13.
662s
13.
613s
13.
570s
13.
536s
13.
502s
13.
463s
13.
420s
13.
369s
13.
310s
13.
243s
13.
170s
13.
090s
13.
582s
13.
541s
13.
509s
13.
474s
13.
445s
13.
423s
13.
405s
13.
392s
13.
382s
13.
382s
13.
398s
13.
418s
13.
432s
13.
439s
13.
436s
13.
422s
13.
395s
13.
359s
13.
313s
13.
259s
13.
197s
13.
129s
13.
054s
12.
645s
12.
652s
12.
662s
12.
679s
12.
702s
12.
732s
12.
778s
12.
848s
12.
931s
13.
007s
13.
068s
13.
114s
13.
141s
13.
152s
13.
149s
13.
136s
13.
111s
13.
078s
13.
036s
12.
986s
12.
929s
12.
866s
12.
796s
12.
201
613s
11.
666s
11.
733s
11.
813s
11.
925s
12.
068s
12.
208s
12.
331s
12.
435s
12.
518s
12.
585s
12.
632s
12.
660s
12.
672s
12.
671s
12.
658s
12.
635s
12.
603s
12.
563s
12.
518s
12.
468s
12.
413s
12.
352s
12.
61.84
Dis
pl (LT)
2.1
77
31.
198
102
.110
201
.997
332
.401
491
.589
679
.427
891
.089
112
4.794
137
9.836
165
6.179
195
2.492
226
8.043
260
0.192
294
8.254
330
9.600
368
4.962
407
3.514
447
3.860
488
6.878
531
1.004
574
792s
70.
000s
7.4
76s
8.2
24s
8.9
37s
9.4
17s
9.6
48s
9.7
71s
9.9
00s
10.
016s
10.
126s
10.
218s
10.
311s
10.
403s
10.
508s
10.
635s
10.
835s
11.
049s
11.
247s
11.
415s
11.
559s
11.
679s
11.
778s
11.
005s
75.
000s
6.4
62s
7.4
06s
8.0
14s
8.2
42s
8.3
25s
8.4
06s
8.5
25s
8.6
45s
8.7
76s
8.9
16s
9.0
72s
9.2
62s
9.5
50s
9.8
38s
10.
087s
10.
300s
10.
479s
10.
628s
10.
757s
10.
865s
10.
952s
11.
972s
80.
000s
6.6
23s
6.9
95s
7.0
73s
6.9
73s
6.9
51s
7.0
30s
7.1
47s
7.2
91s
7.4
62s
7.7
02s
8.0
89s
8.4
67s
8.7
84s
9.0
53s
9.2
72s
9.4
50s
9.5
99s
9.7
22s
9.8
25s
9.9
11s
9.9
82s
10.
722s
85.
000s
8.1
75s
6.6
12s
5.9
18s
5.6
91s
5.6
16s
5.6
80s
5.8
23s
6.0
99s
6.5
58s
7.0
23s
7.4
11s
7.7
30s
7.9
85s
8.1
89s
8.3
58s
8.4
93s
8.6
06s
8.7
01s
8.7
80s
8.8
45s
8.8
98s
8.9
202
287s
4.576
618
8.956
1.796
664
710
1.088
756
4.827
2.681
803
850
3.864
7.873
897
945
4.318
993
3.053
14.14
104
108
97.58
113
83.03
71.20
118
123
61.84
859s
11.
920s
11.
963s
11.
990s
12.
002s
12.
003s
11.
995s
11.
978s
11.
954s
11.
923s
11.
887s
11.
845s
11.
798s
11.
747s
11.
693s
021s
11.
076s
11.
119s
11.
149s
11.
166s
11.
171s
11.
168s
11.
158s
11.
144s
11.
124s
11.
100s
11.
072s
11.
040s
11.
005s
10.
966s
042s
10.
091s
10.
128s
10.
155s
10.
173s
10.
185s
10.
192s
10.
196s
10.
195s
10.
191s
10.
184s
10.
173s
10.
158s
10.
140s
10.
118s
43s
8.9
81s
9.0
13s
9.0
41s
9.0
67s
9.0
89s
9.1
08s
9.1
25s
9.1
40s
9.1
52s
9.1
62s
9.1
68s
9.1
72s
9.1
72s
9.1
68s
203
Cross Curves
Displacement in Long Tons
5000.0
0.0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
10000.0
D. FLOODABLE LENGTH
E. ARRANGEMENTS
F. STRUCTURE
G. POWERING AND PROPULSION
204
H. WEIGHTS
205
Major Components
206
211
I. CENTER OF GRAVITY
214
218
219
220
221
J. DAMAGE STABILITY
222
223
A.
Tool
3DSSPP
Owner
U Michigan
POC Name
Mr. Doug Hockstad
POC Phone
734/615-4004
POC Email
[email protected]
Price
$1,195
Used on Project(s):
Klein Associates
937/873-8166 x 117
$90
Free
ACTA
Training
ACT-R
HFE
Cognition modeling
Carnegie Mellon U
412/268-2787
ADIVA
HFE
Monterey Technologies
831/648-0190
bchamberlain@montereytechnolo
gies.com
$10,000
ADVISOR
Training
Mr. J Bahlis
800/747-4010
$295
AIM
Airbag
AIS-MANPRINT
Training
ESH
MPT
NAVAIR Orlando
ARL/HRED
ARL/HRED
407/381-8607
410/278-5976
410/278-5814
Free
POC
POC
781/273-3388 x272
703/614-5876
[email protected]
http://www.ceac.army.mil/
$1,995
POC
[email protected]
[email protected]
Free
POC
ALPHA Sim
AMCOS
ANAM
ASSESS
ATB
ATB3I
ATEAMS
BFTT
C3TRACE
HFE
Manpower
HFE
HFE
850/452-7674
571/434-9222
AFRL
937/255-1150
POC
Veridian
PEO IWS 1E
PEO IWS 1E
MA&D, ARL-HRED
937/255-7486
619/222-2245
202/781-1214
303/442-6947
$2,095
POC
POC
Free
Aircraft, automotive
Navy: biodynamic response to
underwater explosions
In evaluation by PEO IWS 1E
In use by the Navy
Army: Unit of Action
AMEDD
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
rmy.mil
POC
Medical hazards
Free
Free
$395
POC
POC
POC
CAM
ESH
410/671-2925
CART
MPT
937/656-7013
CASA
CASHE-PVS
CCAB
MPT
HFE
HFE
LOGSA
AFRL
NAVCOMTELSTA
Nicholas Giordano
Mr. Don Monk
Ms. Kathy Winter
256/955-0808
937/255-8814
850-452-7674
[email protected]
[email protected]
.army.mil
[email protected]
[email protected]
NSWC
540/653-0831
ARL
410/278-6335
CM
COMPUTERMAN
Personnel
CTT
HFE
NAWC-CTL
W. Pat Gatewood
301/342-0009
POC
DAVID
HFE
NAMRL
850/452-2557
POC
Delmia-Human
EDCAS
EEPP
HFE
MPT
HFE
3D human simulation
LCC for ops, support, training
Metabolic energy expenditure model
Delmia
TFD Services, Inc.
U Michigan
248/267-9696
770/419-1262
734/615-4004
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
POC
$17,726
$595
ENVISION-ERGO
EPIC
ESH
HFE
Delmia
U Michigan
248/267-9696
734/763-6739
[email protected]
[email protected]
POC
POC
ERGO-INTEL-MMH
ERGO-INTEL-UEA
ErgoMaster
ERGOWEB-JET
ESH
ESH
ESH
ESH
Ergonomic analysis
Human performance modeling
Manual material handling ergonomic
evlaution
Upper extremity ergonomic evlaution
Ergonomics tool suite
Ergonomics tool suite
NexGen Ergonomics
NexGen Ergonomics
NexGen Ergonomics
Ergo Web, Inc.
514/685-8593
514/685-8593
514/685-8593
435/654-4284
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
$1,395
$1,295
$6,995
POC
HFE
Fatigue prediction
AFRL/HED, SAIC
410/538-2901
POC
DREA
902/426-3100 x 325
[email protected] Free
NAWC-CTL
301/342-9245
DDX
Used in several studies at NAWCCTL
FAST
FREDYN
FWTCI
GEBOD
HFE
HAWK
HFE
HSIAC Anthro
iGEN
IMAGE
IMPACT
IMPRINT
INDI
INJURY
IPME
HFE
HFE
HSI
Manpower
HSI
HSI
POC
AFRL
937/255-1150
POC
MA&D
303/442-6947
937/255-4842
POC
HSIAC
Chi Systems, Inc.
Carlow
Carlow
[email protected]
http://iac.dtic.mil/hsiac/Anthro_Se
ts.htm
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
215/542-1400
571/434-9222
703/444-4666
Free
$17,995
POC
POC
MA&D, ARL
Carlow
303/442-6947
571/434-9222
[email protected]
[email protected]
Free
POC
AMEDD
MA&D
301/619-7301
303/442-6947
[email protected]
[email protected]
Free
$15,750
224
B.
225
Frequency
El
Az
GHz
Degrees Degrees
0.8
5
0
0.8
5
1
0.8
5
2
0.8
5
3
0.8
5
4
0.8
5
5
0.8
5
6
0.8
5
7
0.8
5
8
0.8
5
9
0.8
5
10
0.8
5
11
0.8
5
12
0.8
5
13
0.8
5
14
0.8
5
15
0.8
5
16
0.8
5
17
0.8
5
18
0.8
5
19
0.8
5
20
0.8
5
21
0.8
5
22
0.8
5
23
0.8
5
24
0.8
5
25
0.8
5
26
0.8
5
27
0.8
5
28
0.8
5
29
0.8
5
30
0.8
5
31
0.8
5
32
0.8
5
33
0.8
5
34
0.8
5
35
0.8
5
36
0.8
5
37
0.8
5
38
0.8
5
39
0.8
5
40
0.8
5
41
0.8
5
42
0.8
5
43
0.8
5
44
0.8
5
45
0.8
5
46
0.8
5
47
0.8
5
48
0.8
5
49
0.8
5
50
0.8
5
51
0.8
5
52
0.8
5
53
0.8
5
54
0.8
5
55
0.8
5
56
0.8
5
57
0.8
5
58
0.8
5
59
0.8
5
60
0.8
5
61
0.8
5
62
0.8
5
63
0.8
5
64
0.8
5
65
0.8
5
66
0.8
5
67
0.8
5
68
0.8
5
69
0.8
5
70
0.8
5
71
0.8
5
72
VV
47.41
46.54
44.95
42.53
38.74
32.1
26.66
36.27
40.29
41.43
40.93
41.51
43.73
42.95
31.76
41.41
46.47
44.91
36.83
33.25
39.3
37.88
36.22
44.26
43.66
40.94
38.37
45.12
34.71
42.68
46.36
43.82
45.23
44.39
43.24
44.33
46.12
47.82
48.37
47.85
45.69
49.32
42.72
46.65
46.5
46.62
49.64
47.18
47.41
48.43
44.18
46.94
39.39
44.93
49.97
54.28
52.13
55.18
44.43
48.89
48.92
48.21
43.26
30.41
46.56
48.49
55.86
54.04
58.19
55.49
20.33
49.87
54.61
HV
2.88
0.48
2.18
-0.33
-1.44
2.95
9.49
10.31
12.65
13.78
13.71
14.62
13.09
13.17
11.66
10.62
10.61
12.05
13.81
15.2
14.98
12.79
12.61
12.73
12.53
10.41
9.57
12.62
12.95
14.71
13.9
13.83
12.1
13.14
9.76
5.92
8.64
6.27
4.63
7.19
9.31
-3.2
13.25
9.75
15.63
4
4.17
12.41
13.56
14.18
4.85
3.02
11.78
-5.89
13.42
1.79
11.13
11.47
15.36
11.73
8.41
11.64
11.04
11.09
19.16
11.13
18.87
-2.23
20.47
5.79
21.29
17.85
19.48
VH
-1.26
-2.61
2.46
2.1
1.75
3.15
8.09
10.01
12.38
13.74
13.67
14.39
12.91
12.74
11.37
10.28
10.23
12
13.97
15.12
14.94
12.62
12.79
12.75
12.16
9.92
8.82
12.08
13.13
14.48
13.8
13.65
11.94
13.22
9.63
5.84
8.42
5.93
4.73
6.74
9.34
-2.61
13.28
9.84
15.59
3.34
3.94
12.34
13.41
14.21
5.22
3
11.77
-4.5
12.96
3.04
10.48
11.14
15.46
11.36
8.5
11.38
11.07
10.89
18.89
10.82
18.68
-3.46
20.46
6.06
21.4
17.8
19.7
HH
47.68
46.68
45.09
42.62
38.46
30.83
27.52
36.55
40.6
41.82
41.02
41.76
43.8
42.78
30.14
41.49
46.58
45.12
37.55
33.98
39.97
38.76
34.98
44.24
44.47
42.2
36.56
44.5
33.85
42.02
45.79
44
45.58
44.15
43.16
44.51
46.01
47.9
48.46
47.74
45.82
49.28
42.72
46.73
46.42
46.74
49.59
47.29
47.37
48.38
44.11
46.83
38.79
45.06
50.05
54.23
52.18
55.08
44.38
48.96
49.01
48.13
43.11
30.08
46.04
48.65
55.73
54.13
57.99
55.49
28.76
49.72
54.59
226